MY KOLKATA EDUGRAPH
ADVERTISEMENT
Regular-article-logo Monday, 07 July 2025

Such a long journey

Read more below

CHECK-OUT / PUSHPA GIRIMAJI Published 09.02.06, 12:00 AM

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 for reasons best known to him.

Now a recent order of the Apex Consumer Court highlights yet another incident of high-handed behaviour by a railway staff against a senior citizen. In this case, the victim was 64- year-old Shipra Sengupta.

Ms Sengupta’s ordeal on July 8, 2002 began soon after she got off the train that brought her from Calcutta to Chennai. As she got off the train and waited for a relative to receive her, she was asked by a railway staff member for her ticket and proof of age as she had availed the concession available to senior citizens. Dismissing the Patient’s Health Card issued by Peerless Hospital and B.K. Roy Research Centre, Calcutta, which mentioned her age as 64 years, he asked her for a valid proof signed by government authorities. On her failure to produce it,he detained her that night at the station under the supervision of a constable and also slapped a penal charge of Rs 3,806 for ‘travelling without a valid ticket’.

Justifying this behaviour, the railway counsel read out before the consumer court, the letter of July 31, 2002, addressed by the chief commercial manager to Ms Sengupta: “...passengers who avail 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,/Panchayat/corporation/ municipality or any other authentic document?”

Dismissing this argument, the apex consumer court pointed out that on the back 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 phrase “some proof of age” cannot be equated with the documentary proof issued by the government institutions or authorities. Similarly, the ticket said the proof of age could be sought “during the journey” and not after.

Pointing out that Ms Sengupta’s passport and the voter card proved her age to be 64 at the time of journey, the Commission asked the railways to refund the money collected from her. More important, it condemned “the abuse of power by a government servant” and said this was a fit case for awarding exemplary damages of Rs 25,000. (Transfer petition no. 4 of 2004).

Follow us on:
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT