NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
TRANSFER PETITION NO. 4 OF 2004
MRS. SHIPRA
SENGUPTA
........
Petitioner(s)
Vs.
G.M.(COMMERCIAL) SOUTHERN RAILWAY & ANR.
........
Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE
MR. JUSTICE M.B. SHAH, PRESIDENT
DR.
P.D. SHENOY, MEMBER
For the
Petitioner :
MR. SANJAY K. GHOSH, Advocate
For the
Respondent : MR. RAJESHWAR SINGH, Advocate
Dated the 3rd day of
January,2006
ORDER
PER DR. P.D. SHENOY, MEMBER
CASE OF THE COMPLAINANT
The
case illustrates how arbitrarily Government officers can mis-behave
and harass a senior citizen (a woman) for whom various benefits are provided by
the Government and thereby frustrates the beneficial schemes and rendering the
senior citizen helpless.
..2..
Mrs.
Shipra Sengupta, Petitioner
herein has sent a representation dated 22nd June, 2004 to this
Commission enclosing a copy of her representation dated 28th April,
2003 wherein she has stated that she has filed a case No. 834/2003 in District
Consumer Forum, Chennai North
contending that she has been illegally fined by the staff of
the Southern Railways when her journey was over from Howrah
to Chennai on 8.07.02 at Central Station, Chennai. She has further stated that she was standing
in a corner of the platform in the evening waiting for the gentleman to receive
her from the station as the destination was not known to her. A staff member of Railways was watching her
for sometime and then he came near and wanted to check railway ticket. Her ticket number was 44667088 PNR No.
622-2009621, age 64 years and train no. 2811.
Taking the ticket in his hand he demanded some written proof of her
age. She showed him medical papers which
stated her age as 64 years as she was visiting Chennai for the purpose of Eye
Surgery which was to be checked up on 9th July onwards. Her ticket was duly checked at Howrah and also on the way and the checking
staff were satisfied about proof of the age.
On arrival of her relative, for whom she was waiting, she wanted to go
with him with baggage as it was completely dark. The staff member of Railways has demanded some bribe
from her and as she did not pay he did not allow her to
leave the platform
and kept her in the
..3..
supervision
of a constable for the whole night. She
was not allowed to meet the Station Master nor they took
her to any office near the platform. She
was not even allowed to call up the Hospital which she was to visit on the next day. He inflicted a penal charge of Rs.3,806/- treating her as a ticketless
passenger. She was not having that much
cash with her. The railway person forced
her to borrow the money from the gentleman.
She had stitched some money in her personal garment which he forced her
to cut the stitch of her garment in public to pay him the money. She was trembling all the time as she was a
patient of ischemic heart. She never faced this sort of humiliation, agony and
harassment in her 64 years of
life. She handed over Rs.3,806/- for which he gave her a receipt.
She met the
Addl. General Manager, Public Grievance Cell, Mrs. Vijaylakshmi
Viswanathan.
She had also submitted her Passport photocopy to prove that on demand
what she submitted as her
proof of age was neither false nor fake. But despite that her money has not been
refunded. She is a widow and has no
children to support. Even though she had a valid ticket issued by South-Eastern
Railways which was endorsed at the commencement of the journey at Howrah also during the journey, she had to fall
prey to the atrocious behaviour of the staff
member of the Southern Railway. The West
Bengal State
Commission
..4..
has
forwarded her application with their comments that the applicant is an old and
partly incapacitated person.
The
case came up for hearing before the National Commission on 18.03.05 and on
27.04.05. After hearing the parties and considering the
dispute involved the matter was withdrawn to this Commission for deciding it on
merits.
FINDINGS
On
24.08.05 and 23.09.05 Learned Counsel for the Respondent was given time to file the written version and the case was fixed for
final hearing on 15.12.05. After going through the facts of the case we find
that the record supports most of the contentions of the Complainant. The Complainant had shown a prescription of
Dr. Rajalakshmi Iyer,
Consultant, Gynecologist and Obstetrician, Wellesley Medicentre
and also the Patients Health Card issued by Peerless
Hospital and B.K. Roy Research
Centre, Kolkata which mention her age as 64 years to the checking staff at Chennai Railway
Station. But these were disregarded and he wanted proof
of age signed by Government
Authorities stating that it is mandatory.
Ld. Counsel for the Railways quoted a letter dated 31.07.02 addressed by the Chief Commercial
Manager to the Complainant which reads as under:-
5..
Adverting to the letter under reference, it is to be stated that
as per extant rules, passengers of the age group of 65 years and
above for men and 60 years and above for women are granted Senior Citizen
Concession. NO age proof certificate is
required for availing the concession at the time of booking of the ticket.
However,
the passengers who had availed this concession are required to produce documentary
proof of age during travel. The
documentary proof thus produced should be the one issued by any Government
Institute/Agency/Local body like identity card, Ration Card, Driving Licence, Passport, Panchayat/Corporation/Muncipality
or any other authentic document. Submission of documents in support of
age at a later date does not entitle a person in claiming of excess
charges. (emphasis
added)
In
the instant case, as you were unable to produce your Age proof certificate,
when demanded by the Ticket Checking Staff, the excess fare collected is in
order and your claim for refund of the same cannot be acceded to.
Ld. Counsel for the Respondents stated
that documentary proof of age issued by a government agency is mandatory to
avail the concession meant for senior citizens. Whereas on the back of the
ticket issued to the Complainant which was shown by the Ld. Counsel for the
Complainant it is mentioned that the senior citizen availing concession should
on demand produce some proof of age during the journey (emphasis added). The word some proof of age cannot be
equated with the documentary proof issued by the Government institutions or
authorities. The letter of the Chief
Commercial Manager also mentions about
any
..6..
other authentic document. The proof age
produced at Chennai Station cannot be construed as not authentic. Moreover the proof of age was sought after
the completion of journey at Chennai though it is specifically mentioned on the
reverse of the ticket checking during journey. Further, subsequently,
the Complainant has given to the Railway Authorities additional proof of age
issued by the Sankara Nethralaya
dated 9.07.02 wherein they have stated that her date of birth is 1.7.1936 and
also voter identity card which also indicates her date of birth as
1.07.1936.
Hence, it is crystal clear that she
was of 64 years of age and was a senior citizen eligible for availing the
concession as per the Railways policy that women above 60 years are treated as
senior citizen.
This is a classic case of
highhandedness on the part of the Railways Staff Member who for reasons best known to him detained a
helpless lonely lady passenger and had handed over her to the police despite
the fact that her ticket was checked at Kolkata and during the course of her journey.
In this connection, it is useful to
quote the celebrated judgment of the Apex Court in Lucknow
Development Authority Vs. M. K. Gupta { (1994) 1 SCC 243 at 262-263} wherein
it is held:-
The jurisdiction and power of the
Courts to indemnify a citizen for injury suffered due to abuse of power by
public authorities is founded as observed by Lord Hailsham
in Cassell & Co., Ltd., V. Broome 1972
..7..
AC 1027 :
(1972) 1 All ER 801 on the principal that, an award of exemplary damages can
serve a useful purpose in vindicating the strength of law. An ordinary citizen or a common man is hardly
equipped to match the might of the State or its instrumentalities. That is provided by the rule of law. It acts as a check on arbitrary and capricious
exercise of power. In Rookes v. Barnard 1964 AC 1129 :
(1964) 1 ALL ER 367, 410 it was observed by Lord Devlin, the servants of the
government are also the servants of the people and the use of their power must
always be sub-ordinate to their duty of service. A public functionary
if he acts maliciously or oppressively and the exercise of power results in
harassment and agony then it is not an exercise of power but its abuse. No law provides protection against it. He who is responsible for it must suffer
it. Compensation or damage as explained
earlier may arise even when the officer discharges his
duty honestly and bonafide. But when it arises due to arbitrary or
capricious behaviour then it losses its individual
character and assumes social significance. Harassment of a common man by public
authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It may harm him personally but the injury to
society is far more grievous. Crime and corruption
thrive and prosper in the society due to lack of public resistance. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of
helplessness. An ordinary citizen
instead of complaining and fighting succumbs to the pressure of undesirable
functioning of officer instead of standing against it. Therefore, the award
of compensation for harassment by public authorities not only compensate
the individual, satisfied him personally but helps in curing social evil. It may result in improving the work culture
and help in changing the outlook.
Wade in his book Administrative Law has observed that it is to the
credit of
public
authorities that there are simply few reported
English decisions on this form of malpractice, namely, misfeasance in public
offices which includes malicious
..8..
use of
power, deliberate maladministration and perhaps also other unlawful acts
causing injury. One of the reasons for
this appears to be development of law which, apart, from other factors
succeeded in keeping a salutary check on the functioning in the government or
semi-government offices by holding the officers personally responsible for
their capricious or even ultra vires action
resulting in injury or loss to a citizen by awarding damages against them. (Emphasis
supplied)
In view of the above, we direct the Respondents to refund the amount of
Rs.3806/- charged as penalty and also to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- for the irreparable physical and mental agony and
insult caused to a dignified and decent lady who is a widow and who had
gone for medical treatment to Chennai.
The Petition is disposed of accordingly.
There shall be no order as to costs.
..J
(M.B.
SHAH)
PRESIDENT
..
(P.D.
SHENOY)
MEMBER
Yd/12/COURT1