Does it really benefit anyone? Massive organisations like the Indian railways don't blink at a fine of $160 and they certainly aren't going to change anything. Presumably most people don't get over-charged so there isn't necessarily anything they can improve anyway.
I don’t know what the particulars of this case were, but a lot of similar cases led to companies being forced to adopt more consumer-friendly policies.
Like this story of a man who fought for a similar amount which ended up forcing the railways to refund hundreds of thousands to thousands of people:
Another case I remember off the top of my head was vendors charging beyond MRP for beverages in airports. Someone fought that in court over years and as a result, every vendor is now forced to sell bottled beverages at MRP now.
If there is any chance that this very public news has caused even an iota of embarrassment to the publicity-sensitive government and maybe a review of similar useless cases underway, it is well worth it.
Measuring everything is terms of money is wrong and extremely bad attitude. Rules and laws exist for a reason. You can’t put a price on upholding the law
So you'd be fine paying say 99% of your income to hire someone to follow you around and cite you for speeding or jaywalking or any other infraction you commit?
Obviously this is hyperbole, but every society places a price on upholding the law, and a hundred hearings over a quarter is a huge waste of that budget. The only benefit anyone gets is a small smug feeling that for once things went right.
I am not sure this argument is made in good faith. Governments and government bureaucracy have enormous power over an ordinary citizen - part of the reason why there is rampant corruption in India (in the govt sector) is because people don't fight back. For example, paying the bribe is way cheaper and faster than fighting back, in terms of energy/time/money. Same way, we let all kinds of nasty behavior from government slide because we are in a hurry (totally understandable).
The only benefit anyone gets is a small smug feeling that for once things went right.
I can't understand why you are upset at this man for keeping up the case for so long and not at Indian Railways for the same? All Indian railways had to do was say sorry and refund 20 bucks. The fact that they kept fighting him for a measly 20 rupees for over two decades tells you everything you need to know about what they think of the ordinary citizen. This attitude is not unique to Indian railways or to India, btw.
>I can't understand why you are upset at this man for keeping up the case for so long and not at Indian Railways for the same?
None of my criticism has been directed solely at the man, but at all three parties that let this happen. The Railways should have accepted their mistake at the time, the courts should have immediately thrown out or ruled on a case over a quarter, and the man should have accepted that sometimes small mistakes happen.
You seem to hold this as some hero fighting the good fight over corruption, and I don't see that position at all. Yes corruption is an issue, in India and elsewhere. This waste of time had nothing to do with it.
Of course you can, it happens all the time. I suggest you temper your idealism in the cold water of pragmatic awareness. A simple example of cost-capping is the idea of barratry, where a person can be deemed a vexatious litigant - legalspeak for a troll who harasses others with frivolous lawsuits that are substantively deficient but require expensive procedural work to dismiss.
What's notable here (and often true in stories like this) is that the litigant is a lawyer. They have the skill to manage the case and it is only costing them personal time, which might pay for itself in terms of professional or commercial reputation in addition to emotional satisfaction.
They fight tiny battles and when they win, they benefit everyone.