The suspicion based solely on the age difference was not a valid reason to treat the complainant as a ticketless passenger or to collect excess fare, constituting a case of deficiency in service.

Thiru Justice A. Raman, President—This appeal is related to a complaint against the Railways. The complainant booked this ticket at Tirupur to go to Chennai on 6.12.1999 for business reasons by Cheran Express. At the end of the journey at Central Railway Station, the opposite party examined the ticket of all passengers. The complainant produced his ticket but the opposite party accused the complainant that he had travelled in another man’s ticket and prevented him from going out of the station. The complainant produced his passport, in spite of it, the opposite party threatened the complainant with imprisonment and compelled him to pay a sum of Rs. 348/-. Thus, there is deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.

2. The opposite party submits that the complaint relates to refund of excess fare and that such a claim would lie only before the Railway Claims Tribunal. We are unable to accept the contention of the opposite party. The claim is not because he was asked to pay a sum of Rs. 348/- but the claim arises because the complainant who was holding a valid ticket in his name was harassed stating that he was travelling in the ticket of some other person and was compelled to pay the same. Therefore, the complainant has claimed a compensation of Rs. 10,000/-.

3. The complainant’s case is not disputed. The complainant has travelled in that train. He was carrying the ticket which was in his name. In the reply Ex. B3, the opposite party has stated that the reason for the collection of the amount was there was a difference in age. According to him, the TTE examined and suspected the age of the passenger and, therefore, treated the passenger as a ticketless passenger. We do not know how a TTE by looking at a person fix his age or determine his age. Even assuming that the age was given incorrectly, it cannot amount to impersonation or travel in some other ticket. If at all the particular regarding the age was erroneous that would have happened either because it was not correctly noted by the complainant or by the railway staff. It is not the opposite party’s case that the other particulars did not tally. If there was any other suspicion regarding the name of the party whether he was a bona fide passenger, one can understand. Merely because the age, he did not look of the age it was shown on the ticket, cannot be a reason for suspecting a person to be not a bona fide passenger or to collect excess fare from him or treat him as a ticketless passenger.

4. The learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon a decision of this Commission as well as the provisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal to show that such a claim would lie only before the Railway Claims Tribunal. The complainant is not questioning the rate charged here. He is not questioning that he is liable to pay only a particular amount and not his claim. The complainant held a valid ticket. He was allowed to travel all the way from Tirupur to Chennai. Because the TTE thought he was aged at 28 whereas the ticket show 24, he was considered as a ticketless traveller. The complainant, therefore, has claimed compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and along with refund of the amount of Rs. 348/- which was erroneously collected from him. Thus, therefore, it is not the case that would fall within the ambit of Railway Claims Tribunal. It is clear case of deficiency in service. It is a case of harassing a passenger who was holding a valid ticket. Therefore, the Lower Forum had correctly decided the matter. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the lower Forum.

5. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs. 250/- confirming the order passed by the lower Forum.

Appeal dismissed.

––