The Petitioner's case is as follows:

The petitioner and her family had booked second class sleeper ticket in the Muri Express (8102)on 23-9-06 from Kottayam Railway Station and they got berth reservation in ST-6. The tickets were for travelling from Amritsar to New Delhi on 19.10.06. They boarded the train from Amritsr at 19.30 p.m. on 19.10.06 and they got their berths. When the train reached the next railway station, many people unauthorisedly entered in to the reservation compartment and seated in the petitioner's and family members' berths inspite of their protests. The petitioner's daughter aged 12 years was asleep on the upper berth and two men seated on the said berth. The petitioner asked them to alight from her daughter's

-2-

reserved berth but they did not heed to her request. The petitioner complained to the ticket examiner about the tresspassers but they neither cared to oust the tresspassers nor fined them. This indifferent attitude of ticket examiner prompted many more passengers into the reservation compartment and they seated on all berths and many laid on the floor restraining the movement of petitioner and her family. The tresspassers threatened the petitioner and her family and they were forced to suffer hardships, fear of life and inconvenience all through the night till they reached Delhi Station. The petitioner sent a letter to the first opposite party demanding compensation. The first opposite party did not send a reply. Hence the petitioner filed this petition claiming Rs.40,000/- as compensation and cost of proceedings.

Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version with the following main contention.

(i) The consumer disputes redressal forum does not have

jurisdiction over the disputes raised in the complaint.

(ii) Unauthorised passengers are not allowed to travel in

reserved compartments of a train of the railways and

whenever waitlist/RAC or passengers without ticket enter

the coach they are regularised/charged and in case of no

accommodation they are de-boarded from the coach.

(iii) On 19.10.06, no unauthorised person was allowed to

travel in ST-6 coach in the night.

(iv) The upper berth is sleeper berth and no person

trespassed on their berth or caused disturbance or

discomfort to them.

(v) All the passengers who boarded the train from

intermediate stations were accommodated on vacant

seats/berths of coach No.ST-7.

-3-

(vi) No oral or written complaint was lodged with the

coach TTE.

Hence the opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint with compensatory cost to them.

Points for consideration are:

(i) Whether the petition is maintainable?

(ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair

trade practice on the part of opposite parties.

(iii) Reliefs and costs.

Evidence consists of the affidavits filed by both parties, deposition of PW1 and exhibits A1 to A3.

Point No.1.

The opposite party's counsel argued that the alleged incidents occurred in a train of the Northern Railway which does not come within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Forum and that the complaint with regard to the grievances should have been made to the Northern Railway. Where as the petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner and her family had booked sleeper ticket from the Kottayam Railway Station and therefore this court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

As per S.11 (1) (b) of Consumer Protection Act, a complainant can institute a complaint in a district forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any of the opposite parties carries on business or has a branch office, inter alia. Since the Department of Railways carries on its business in its various railway stations scattered all over the country, the complainant can file a complaint in the District Forum in whose jurisdiction any of the railway station of

-4-

the Indian Railway is situated. Moreover the tickets for the alleged journey were booked from the Kottayam railway station and

therefore a part of the cause of action arose in the local limits of jurisdiction of this district forum. So we are of the view that this petition is maintainable.

Point No.2.

The petitioner averred that many people unauthorisedly entered the reservation compartment which was already full with reserved passengers and seated in her and her family members' berths inspite of their protests. The petitioner further averred that two men seated on the upper berth where her daughter aged 12 was asleep caused her mental agony. As per the petitioner's averment the ticket examiners in the compartment neither cared to oust the unauthorized travellers nor fined them. The opposite party denied the above mentioned allegations and averred that no other person tresspassed on the berths or caused disturbance or discomfort to the petitioner and her family. The opposite parties further averred that the complainant or anybody on her behalf, did not make any complaint orally or on writing to the concerned railway.

The petitioner issued a notice to the opposite parties on 9.11.2006. The said notice is produced and marked as exhibit A1. The postal receipt and acknowledgement card showing the issuance and receipt of the above said notice are also produced and marked as Exhibit A1(a) and Exhibit A3. It is significant to note that no reply was issued by the opposite party to the above notice, exhibit A1.

No consumer in ordinary and normal course take up the

-5-

matter with the service providers so vigorously. In modern day busy life no person is ready to spend her precious time and hard earned money to visit the courts and advocates. Considering the above mentioned circumstances we find there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Railways were deficient in their service in this case because “firstly unauthorised entry was not blocked and secondly after the complaint made by the petitioner, no assistance was offered to the petitioner by the railway authorities.

The railway administration is charged with the responsibility to take measures against unauthorised persons getting easily into the reserved compartments. It is the duty of the TTE for the sleeper coaches to check the tickets of the passengers in such coaches and prevent unauthorised persons entering into the coach. The berths duly reserved by the petitioner and her family had been occupied by unauthorised persons. The scene of two tresspassers seated on the upper berth where the petitioner's daughter was asleep would have definitely caused mental agony and severe tension to the petitioner. So the railway authorities are liable for the mental agony suffered by the petitioner and her family because they neglected to check the entry of unauthorised persons in the reserved compartment and also failed to remove them forcibly. So we hold The Railways deficient in their services and award Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the petitioner.

Point No.3.

In view of the findings in point No. 1&2 petition is allowed and the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs sought for.

In the result, it is ordered as follows”

-6-

The opposite parties will pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner for the inconveniences and mental agony suffered by the petitioner and her family and Rs.2500/- towards the cost of

litigation.

The cost and compensation shall be paid within one month of the receipt of this order, failing which the aforesaid amount would carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of payment.

The petition is disposed of with the aforementioned directions.