(From the Order dated 5-6-96 in S.C.Case No.251/A/95 of State Commission, West Bengal)

Mr.Bhaskar Choudhary                           -- Petitioner
Vs.
Dr. Pramod Kumar Agrawal                    -- Respondent

Before: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Suhas C.Sen, President, Dr.(Mrs.) R.Thamarajakshi,Member,  Mr. S.P. Bagla, Member, Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.K.Mehra, Member

S.P.Bagla, Member

This Revision Petition is against the Order of the State Commission, West Bengal, dated 5-6-1996. The admitted facts of this case are that the Complainant/Respondent in this petition, Dr. Pramod Kumar Agrawal had five confirmed tickets for A.C.II tier berth for journey from Allahabad to Howrah by 2812 Down, Kalka Mail on 14-6-1993 As the train was late and another train, namely, Train No. 1160 UP, Chambal Express was parked at the station, the Complainant/Respondent approached the Conductor-Guard to allow him to travel by that train. That train had no A.C. coach and the Complainant/Respondent and his family members numbering five were allotted berths in a non-AC 1st Class on the same ticket, i.e., the ticket meant for the Kalka Mail. An endorsement to the effect that 5 berths had been allotted in Chambal Express by the concerned Conductor-Guard was made on the ticket meant for the Kalka Mail. On the basis of this authority given by the Conductor-Guard of the Chambal Express the Complainant Respondent travelled by this train. He, however, was checked by an Anti-Fraud Squad of Eastern Railway at Mughal Sarai Station and was forced to pay Rs. 3020/- as fare and a penalty of Rs. 725/- totalling Rs. 3745/- for unauthorised travel in the Chambal Express. The Complaint of Dr. Agrawal was dismissed by the District Forum on the ground that he had no case as he was travelling without a valid confirmed ticket, and, therefore, the Railways were within their right to charge him the fare for the journey in Chambal Express. In Appeal, the State Commission, West Bengal, allowed the complaint on the ground that the endorsement by the concerned Conductor-Guard on the ticket of the Complainant, permitting him to occupy five berths in the Chambal Express, created an estoppel on the Railway Authorities. They also held that as there was no mala-fide on the part of the Complainant/Respondent in travelling by the Chambal Express for which a valid endorsement had been made by the Conductor-Guard, the Railways should refund Rs. 3,745/- charged from him at the Mughal Sarai Station.

In the Revision Petition before us, the Railways have contended that since the Complainant had travelled without a valid ticket, it was incumbent upon the Anti-Fraud Squad to charge him the fare for the Chambal Express; that it does not matter as to whether he had a valid ticket or not of another train, as a ticket cannot be used for travel by another train. We have given a careful consideration to this contention of the Railways, but are not convinced for the reason that as far as the Complainant is concerned he was under a bona-fide impression that he had been allowed to travel by that train on the basis of endorsement on the ticket he had, by the concerned Conductor-Guard. We agree with the reasoning given by the State Commission that an endorsement by the Conductor-Guard permitting a passenger to travel in the train creates an estoppel on the Railway Authorities to turn around and challenge their own action at a later stage.

From a perusal of record of the case, we find that the Railways have already returned Rs. 3,069/-, which was the fare for the Kalka Mail in which the journey could not be performed. Since the passenger did perform the journey by another train, it is only correct that he should pay the fare for that journey. Therefore, we modify the order of the State Commission in which the Railways have been asked to refund Rs. 3,745/- which includes a sum of Rs. 3,020/- as fare, so the extent that only Rs. 725/- charged as penalty awarded by the State Commission and Rs. 1,000/- as damages for harassment and mental agony need to be paid to the Complainant respondent. This revision petition is disposed off subject to this modification in the order of the State Commission.