|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SOME years ago, 72-year-old Jayarama Shastrigal, travelling on a valid reserved ticket from Tiruchi to Chennai was humiliated and forced to detrain midway by a TTE. The consumer court awarded damages to the senior citizen and asked the Railways to ensure that their staff behaved better. A recent order of the apex consumer court highlights yet another incident of high-handed behaviour of a railway employee. The victim was 64-year-old Shipra Sengupta. On grounds that she did not show a valid proof of age, Sengupta, who had taken the trip for an eye treatment, was detained overnight at Chennai Central Station and asked to pay a penalty. Sengupta’s ordeal on July 8, 2002, began soon after she got off the train at Chennai from Kolkata. She was waiting for her relative at the station when a staff member, who was watching her for some time, asked her to show her ticket, which she did. He then asked her for proof of her age for availing the concession available to senior citizens. She showed him the Patient’s Health Card issued by Peerless Hospital and B.K. Roy Research Centre, Kolkata, which mentioned her age as 64 years. But he told her that this was not valid and that he wanted proof of age signed by government authorities. After this, apparently, he asked her for some bribe and when she refused, she was detained that night under the supervision of a constable. She was not allowed to meet the Station Master or even call the hospital, where she had an appointment for eye treatment. He, then, asked her to pay a penal charge of Rs 3,806. She had stitched some money in her personal garment and she was forced to cut open the stitches in public. Subsequently, she made representations to the railway officials along with additional proof of age such as her voter identity card and her passport. But failing to get any justice, she approached the consumer court. Justifying the railway staff’s behaviour, the railway counsel quoted a letter addressed by the Chief Commercial Manager to Sengupta: "Passengers who avail of 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 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." Dismissing the argument, the National Commission pointed out that on the reverse of the ticket issued to the complainant, all it said was that senior citizens availing concession should on demand produce "some proof of age during the journey." The word proof of age" cannot be equated with the documentary proof issued by government institutions or authorities, it said. Similarly, the ticket said the proof of age could be sought "during the journey" and not after. The commission asked the Railways to refund Rs 3,806 collected from Sengupta. The commission observed that behaviour such as this could well defeat the very purpose of such schemes. This was therefore a fit case for awarding exemplary damages in condemnation of the abuse of power by a government servant. It therefore awarded Rs 25,000 as compensation. The decision to award exemplary damages should certainly send a clear signal to not just the Railways but also all service providers: treat customers in general, particularly senior citizens, with respect. And if you abuse the power vested in you, then you will have to pay the price. |
