Rlys told to compensate judge for TTE’s conduct

CHENNAI: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has asked the Southern Railway to compensate Rs 60,000 to a judicial officer who petitioned that he and his family was harassed by a TTE (ticket examiners) on a Chennai-bound train, in 2014.

T Chandrasekaran, now Chief Judge at the court of small causes, Chennai had filed the petition when he was serving as a subordinate judicial officer in Coimbatore.

He was travelling to the city to participate in the competitive exams for promotion to the post of District Judge and had booked four tickets on May 20, 2014, for his family’s journey on June 12, 2014, in 3rd AC coach of the Nilgiri Express.

However, when he reached the station, two tickets were allotted to a non-AC coach. The complaint said there was no prior intimation and the family was forced to travel separately. It further said they faced similar issues during return travel too, in which his parents accompanied him.

On the first leg of the journey, the petitioner said the ticket examiners (TTE) posed unwarranted questions and used filthy language at his wife, despite explaining the situation caused by the Railways. “About 70 passengers were left in the lurch without proper explanation about the reason for depriving them of the AC facility. No pillows and bed covers were provided,” the petition stated.

In response, the Railways submitted that an additional AC coach could not be attached due to operational reasons and there was also a software glitch in the computer reservation system, and they have issued a refund to the petitioner.

After perusing the submissions, the consumer court pointed out that the petitioner could have avoided the harsh language in the petition against the TTEs when he himself is a victim of rude behaviour.

The court however inferred that there was unwarranted behaviour from the TTEs based on the Railways’ submission that the ticket examiners were counselled and that their performance will be monitored for remedial action and directed that a compensation of Rs 60,000 be paid to the petitioner for mental agony and litigation expenses.