Misunderstanding of facts leading to unjust demand constitutes deficiency in service.

Thiru Justice E.J. Bellie, President—The opposite party, the General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras Central against whom an award has been passed is the appellant. It appears the complainants husband, wife and their 3 children travelled in the train from Tirupathi to Madras on 19.2.1993 alongwith others taking 12 adult tickets and 4 half tickets. According to them on the way the Travelling Examiner checked their tickets and having satisfied himself returned the tickets by making endorsement. On alighting the train when they went to the exit gate at Central Station the Ticket Examiner at the gate after glancing the tickets pulled the 4th complainant for whom a half ticket was taken and handled her in a rough and tough manner and started putting questions regarding her age. Though the 4th complainant told the Ticket Examiner that she was 10 years old and was studying in the 6th standard, the Ticket Examiner was not satisfied and he demanded Rs. 30/- as bribe to let them off. When the complainants protested, the Ticket Examiner demanded Rs. 67/- stating that the 4th complainant is a major and not a minor and for' ticket and penalty they must pay Rs. 67/-. Thus the Ticket Examiner put them into humiliation and got the said sum of Rs. 67/-. The complainants were physically and mentally harassed for 2 hours and they reported about this to the Chief Commercial Superintendent. On these grounds alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party the complaint was filed.

2. The opposite party contended that the TTE because he genuinely thought the 4th complainant was not a child and since she said that she was studying 8th standard, thought that her age must be 12 years and therefore he collected the deficient fare amount with penalty totalling to Rs. 67/- and it is not correct to say that the complainants were put to any humiliation or harassment.

3. The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence came to the conclusion that the complainants' case must be true and holding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party it passed an award directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 7,000/- as compensation and also the amount collected from them Rs. 67/-. It also ordered payment of Rs. 350/- as costs.

4. Now in the appeal, as regards the finding of the District Forum that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party we find no compelling reasons to interfere with that. As pointed out by the District Forum Ex. Al Birth Extract shows that the 4th complainant was born on 26.3.1982 and therefore her age must be at that time 10 years only and Ex. A7 a receipt dated 3.2.1993 for payment of school fees shows that at that time she must be studying in the 6th standard and this being the case it cannot be said that the 4th complainant had stated to the TTE she was studying in 8th standard. Therefore it would be seen that the collection of more charges and penalty would amount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Coming to the quantum of the amount awarded we are of the view that Rs. 7.000/- in considering the circumstances of the case is on the higher side. In our judgment a sum of Rs. 4,000/- would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice.

5. Accordingly the order of compensation ordered by the District Forum is reduced from Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 4,000/-. There will be no order as to costs in the appeal.

Orders passed.