1. This is an application in revision by the Secretary of State for India in Council against the decision of learned Judge of the Small Causes Court at Moradabad.
2. It appears that the respondent Mr. Murli Manohar bought a ticket from Agra to Moradabad. He paid for the route, a portion of which branched off from Aligarh and passed through Chandausi. He, however, discovered, later on, that if he travelled beyond Aligarh and via Ghaziabad he would arrive at his destination more quickly than by the proposed route, although he would be travelling by a longer route. He thought that he might travel by the longer route. He did travel accordingly and when he arrived at Moradabad, he was made to pay an excess fare. He thereupon brought the suit out of which this revision has arisen, to recover from the railway administration, the amount of the excess fare.
3. The suit succeeded in the Court below and hence the revision.
4. The Court below held that Rule 64 of the Coaching Tariff permitted the respondent to travel by the route he chose. In this Court, his learned Counsel has relied on a further rule to be found in the 'Time Table' issued by the East India Company and printed at p. 175 as being Clause (r) to Rule 1 under the heading 'Travelling by alternative routes.' On behalf of the applicant, reliance is placed on Rule 63 of the Coaching Tariff which is also to be found at p. 119 of the aforesaid Time Table, as Clause (f) to Rule 2 headed. 'Booking of Passengers.' Rule 64 is described as a rule relating to
passengers found travelling by routes other than the booked route
and runs as follows:
When a passenger is found travailing on a route by which he is not booked, he may travel to destination by the shortest or closest route whichever he prefers, without any additional charge, fare or penalty being levied. If, however, a passenger refused to travel by the shortest or closest route, he will be charged the fare for the route by which he travels.
5. A bare reading of this rule will show that this rule applies only when a passenger is in transit. It has nothing to do with a passenger who has arrived at his destination. This rule is meant to apply to a case in which a passenger, either deliberately or by mistake has selected a route by which he is not permitted to travel by the ticket. In those circumstances, the rule lays down that the railway administration will make him travel by the shortest or the quickest route, whichever he prefers. This rule cannot, by any possible interpretation, be made applicable to a case in which the journey has come to an end.
6. As regards Clause (r) to be found at p. 175 of the Time Table, this too has no application, for it does not permit a passenger to travel beyond the place which he has to reach. The illustration given clearly shows that the point, which he must not go beyond, would be a place on the same longitude as the place of his destination. In this case, Ghaziabad is situated to the west of the longitude which must pass through Moradabad and therefore the respondent must be taken to have travelled beyond Moradabad.
7. The two exceptions relied on by the respondent having failed him, it must follow that Rule 63 governs the case. Even if Rule 63 did not exist, it must be taken that the route one travels by must be paid for. The result is that the railway administration ware perfectly justified in exacting the excess fare that they did realize and the suit was not justified.
8. I allow the application with costs and direct that the suit do stand dismissed with costs.