This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner The General Manager Eastern Railway against the order dated 29.07.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in FA/935/2014.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that on 07.11.2013, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, (in short the ‘District Forum’) with the allegation that he purchased e-ticket on 21.08.2013 for journey on 21.09.2013, through IRCTC website [Internet service] for journey of the complainant and other three passengers on seat no.36,37, 38 and 39 in Second sitting class (2S) coach no.DR1 of train no.12024 of 21.09.2013 from Jasidih to Howrah.  It has further been alleged that though a seat no.35 [window seat] in coach no.DR1 of train no.12024 of 21.09.2013 was allotted to the complainant, but on boarding the train at Jasidih, he found that the said seat has been occupied by other passenger.  The complainant requested the said passenger to vacate the seat, but he refused, showing his e-ticket in which it was found that the same seat was allotted to him also.  When the ticket checker came, the entire matter was narrated to him with a request to arrange a window seat so that the complainant would avoid discomfort and sufferings, as he was a patient of high blood sugar, blood pressure, knee pain and some kind of pulmonary discomfort.  No help was extended by the TTE.  Allegedly, after reaching home, the complainant felt sick and consulted Doctor at night because of the sufferings during his journey for about 05 hours. He filed a complaint before District Forum seeking a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs from the General Manager, Eastern Railway.  On 03.07.2014, the District Forum awarded compensation of Rs.35,000/- towards causing mental pain, agony, harassment and sufferings.  Punitive damage of Rs.5000/- was imposed against the petitioner for the purpose of checking the malpractice and deceitful manner of practice of its employee.  In addition to the above, for each days delay penal interest @ Rs.250/- was also imposed on the petitioner.  on 06.08.2014, the complainant filed an appeal before State Commission, West Bengal against the order dated 03.07.2014.  On 27.08.2014, the opposite party filed an appeal before State Commission, West Bengal against the order dated 03.07.2014.  On 07.05.2015, the State Commission, West Bengal dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant.  On 30.09.2015, National Commission dismissed the RP No.1339 of 2015 filed by the complainant.  On 29.07.2016, the State Commission, West Bengal dismissed the appeal filed by the opposite party. 

3.      Hence the present revision petition.

4.      Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.  Respondent complainant did not appear on notice and submitted his written submission by posts which have been considered.  Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the same averments which were submitted in the written revision and stated that it is wrong to say that the complainant did not travel on a window seat as seat no.35 is also a window seat.  Thus, no deficiency in service was committed by the petitioner herein.  The complaint was resisted by the opposite party.  On duty TTE who specifically noted that in the said coach there were 81 seats but not 93 and his seat number would be 35 in place of 36 which was noted by the on-duty TTE but complainant did not avail of that seat though that seat is also situated on the window side and in support of that railway authority also placed sitting arrangement map of the particular coach wherefrom it is found that seat No,35 is situated on the window side at the same time 36 is also situated on the window side.  So OP submitted that the allegation of the complainant that complainant did not get window side seat is completely false. 

5.   On the other hand, in the written submission, the complainant has stated that the version given by the petitioner is not correct and due to change of seat, the complainant could not get the window seat whereas this ticket was for window seat.  The complainant had booked the window seat as he has some medical problems like high blood pressure and pulmonary problem which required him to sit near window on a window seat.  Ultimately as he could not get the window seat he had to get treatment when he reached the destination.  Both the fora below have given concurrent finding and therefore, the scope under the revision petition is quite limited and this Commission cannot reassess the facts at this stage of revision petition.  It was requested to dismiss the revision petition.

6.      I have carefully considered the arguments of both the sides and examined record.  It is seen that the complainant was booked for seat no.36 and in the ticket it is clearly indicated that this is a window seat.  The complainant in the complaint has stated the following:-

“I purchased an e-ticket for journey from Jasidih Jn. To Howrah for myself, my wife Smt. Sumita Majumdar, my sister Smt. Rina Chakraborty and my brother-in-law Sri Tapash Chakraborty on 21/09/2013 in train number DN12024 Patna Janasatabdi Superfast Express, the journey dated was 21/08/2013.  I am an ailing Senior Citizen suffering from high Blood Sugar, pressure, knee pain and some kind of pulmonary discomfort, if I am placed into a non-airy, stuffy situation for a long period.  So while travelling in non-AC reserved coach I choose window side seat of the train for myself.  I was sure while purchasing e-ticket for 4 heads that in the row of 3 in each portion (left and right) of coach, at least 1 seat will be allowed to window side if not more.  As luck would have it a window side seat was allotted out of 4 seats.  Eventually it was allotted in my name.  Window side seat no. was 36 in coach DR 1 No. was allotted to me then I got rest assured that with allocation of window side seat I would be able to have a comfortable journey for nearly 5 hours in the train.

    But on boarding the train I found the seat No.35 in coach DR 1 was preoccupied by a passenger.  Naturally, I requested the passenger to vacate the said seat as it was allotted to me.  The passenger refused my request showing his e-ticket in which it was found that the same seat no. was allotted to him also. I then narrated about my impending pulmonary discomfort and suffering if I could not take window side seat.  He did not accede my request on the ground that since that row of seats was just at the end of the coach, he too would have to face the suffocative situation as the row did have very short space between seat and end wall portion of the coach.  A few minutes later when ticket checker came I narrated him the entire situation and requested him to arrange a window-seat to ease my would be discomfort and sufferings.  He expressed sympathy but could not help me by any means.”

7.      From the above it is quite clear that the main grievance of the complainant is that some passenger was already sitting on seat no.35 who did not vacate the seat for the complainant.  It is not clear as to why the complainant tried to occupy seat no.35 whereas his allotted seat was no.36.  The complainant has also not clarified in his complaint as to on which seat he ultimately travelled during his journey.  Though, in his written submission he has stated that his seat was changed by TTE from 36 to 35 as evident by an endorsement on the copy of the e-ticket by the TTE, however, no such averment is made in the complaint.  It is stated in the complaint that TTE did not do anything on his complaint.  Thus, the real facts of the complaint are unclear.  However, by any reason, he was not allowed to sit on the window seat, the deficiency on the part of the Indian Railways is self-evident as the deficiency may be either in giving a wrong ticket with mentioning of his seat on a window seat as mentioned by TTE in his endorsement on the ticket or allotting another seat by cancelling his window seat by the TTE which prima-facie seems wrong in the light of the ground taken in the written version that both seat No.35 and 36 are window seats.  If this was so, then, what was the need to change.  Therefore, both the fora below have rightly given the finding that the petitioner was deficient in providing services to the complainant and I agree with the same, however, deficiency is not commensurate with the compensation awarded by the District Forum and confirmed by the State Commission.  It is seen that the State Commission has observed the following in its order.

“It is a fact that the complainant purchased e-tickets for their journey between Jasidih and Howrah Station by Coach No.DR-I of the Train No.12023/12024 Howrah- Patna-Patna Howrah Janasatabdi Express and it revealed from material on record that seat No.36 was allotted to the complainant, while the seat No.35 was allotted to another passenger, namely, Sri Rakesh Gupta.  So the allegation of the Complainant that seat No.35 being a window side seat was unauthorizedly occupied by another passenger and the Complainant/Respondent was deprived of such seat was not proved.”

 8.     From the above it is clear that the State Commission has not passed its finding on the same facts which were concluded by the District Forum rather, the State commission has relied more upon the judgment and order dated 30.09.2015 passed by this Commission in the revision petition No.1339 of 2015 which was filed by the complainant against the dismissal of his appeal No.797 of 2014 by the State Commission against the order of the District Forum.  It is seen from the order passed by this Commission that this Commission dismissed the revision petition finding no merit in the revision petition at the admission stage without issuing any notice to the Indian Railways, the petitioner herein.  The State Commission has considered this order dated 30.09.2015 of this Commission as confirmation of the order passed by the District Forum which is not correct as this Commission has given only finding that the order of the State Commission does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error.  As no notice was issued to Indian Railways by the National Commission, its order cannot be considered as binding on the petitioner herein.  Therefore, present revision petition No.2590 of 2016 filed by the Indian Railways can be considered on merits afresh. 

9.      Earlier it has been seen that the Indian Railway was deficient in providing services to the complainant, however, the compensation granted by the District Forum and confirmed by the State Commission is not commensurate with the deficiency in service.  The complainant actually utilised his ticket and reached destination and it is not that he reached destination without getting any seat.  Like other passengers, the complainant also reached the destination while sitting on a regular seat for which the fare was same as for the window seat.  In fact, the complainant has not suffered any monetary loss though he suffered some mental agony and harassment as well as some inconvenience for 5 hours of the journey.  Compensation provided by the District Forum is highly exaggerated and cannot be sustained as it is unreasonable.  The State Commission has not given any view on the amount of compensation granted by the District Forum and has dismissed the appeal filed by the Indian Railways only on the ground of the order dated 30.9.2015 passed by this Commission.  In my view, compensation of Rs.10,000/- would be sufficient and reasonable for the inconvenience suffered by the complainant if any in the facts and circumstances of the present case.  Proceedings under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 cannot be a means for enrichment of the complainant.

10.    On the basis of above discussion, order dated 03.07.2014 of the District Forum is modified to the extent that the petitioner Indian Railways shall pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- only to the complainant instead of Rs.35,000/- as awarded by the District Forum.  Remaining order of the District Forum is set aside.  Consequently, the order of the State Commission also stands modified.  This order be complied by the petitioner herein within a period of 45 days from the date of this order, failing which interest @9% shall be payable from the date of this order till actual payment.