HON'BLE SUDIP NIYOGI PRESIDENT FACTS Complainant filed this instant complaint by making an allegation of deficiency in service against the respondents. His case, in a nutshell, is that on 08/04/2021, he undertook a journey by train No. 53178 from Dhubulia to Dum Dum Junction. He bought reservation cum journey ticket vide PNR No.681191636 having seat No.48 and coach No- S/2 through the official online reservation portal of the respondents. The fare was Rs.51.80/-. During the journey, he found the on duty TTE who has the responsibility to check the tickets of the passengers on board did not turn up to him to check his ticket. He also found around 3 to 4 times eunuchs boarded the reserved coaches of the train including the coach of the complainant and started extorting money from the passengers including him. He also found a lot of unauthorized passengers boarded the said reserved coach and started asking passengers with reserved seats to make way for them to sit on the reserved seats. According to him, all these happened in violation of the Railway Rules. He tried to contact on duty TTE but could not find him. So, he made two tweets through Twitter informing the said incident. The respondents made a reply to his complaint on getting the PNR and contact number of the complainant. Thereafter, at Dum Dum Junction station, the representatives of respondent No. 3 made the complaint and provided some assistance. He lodged a written complaint with the Station Manager/Booking Supervisor and obtained an acknowledgement for the same. The complainant alleged violation of the provision of Consumer Protection Act and also Indian Penal Code and the Railways Act and he prayed for a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- which includes the cost of ticket as well as cost of litigation and compensation for harassment and deficiency in service. Respondents contested by filing a written version and challenging the maintainability of the instant complaint. They also claimed to have enquired the matter and found the contention of the complaint was a baseless one without any sufficient proof. So, they prayed for dismissal of the instant complaint with exemplary costs. Therefore, the points for consideration in this case are- - Is the instant complaint is maintainable?
- Is the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief, if any, is the complainant?
FINDINGS: We have gone through the petition of complaint, the written version and also the evidence of the parties. We have also gone through the questionnaire exchanged between the parties and the replies thereto. Also perused the documents filed by the parties in support of their respective claims. Brief Notes of Argument is filed by the respondents. Point No. 1: On behalf of the respondents, the maintainability of the instant complaint has been challenged. According to them, the complaint is not maintainable as the provision of Section 80 (1b), Civil Procedure Code in the case of Railways which was not complied with. According to Section 80 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code, before a suit is instituted against the Central Government or State Government a notice, in writing, of two months is required to be served. If the claim relates to the Railways in that event, the notice is required to be served upon the General Manager of the particular Railway. No suit can be filed until the expiration of the said two months next after the said notice has been delivered. In fact, under Consumer Protection Act, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is a quasi judicial authority established to provide prompt relief to the consumers. A complaint filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 seeking relief in accordance with the provision of the said Act cannot be termed as a ‘suit’ for which Section 80 of the C.P.C has been incorporated. So, we do not think that the notice of Section 80 of the C.P.C is required in connection with the present complaint. This apart, the complainant is found to have made certain allegations of deficiency in service etc. against the respondents that is why, he filed the complaint. Going through the nature of the complaint, we find the instant case is maintainable. Points No. 2 & 3: Admittedly, complainant made the journey on a valid reserved ticket of train No. 53178 on 08/04/2021 from Dhubulia to Dumdum Junction. Admittedly also, his seat number was 48 in coach No- S/2. The complainant alleged that during his journey, the on duty TTE did not come to him to check the ticket. Secondly, eunuchs visited their coach 3 to 4 times and started extorting money from the passengers including the complainant. Thirdly, a lot of unauthorized passengers also boarded the said reserved coach and asked the passengers to make way for them to sit on the reserved seats. Complainant further claimed he tried to contact the on duty TTE but could not find in person as leaving behind his luggage it was not possible and that is why, he made twitter complaint twice with the Railways. But in spite of that none came to attend him. Thereafter, at the station of his destination i.e. Dumdum Junction, he lodged a written complaint with the Railways. Thus, according to complainant, all these amounted to gross violation of the rules of Railways which is nothing but deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. As against this, the respondents denying the allegations claimed that complainant failed to prove the allegations against them. They also claimed that complainant could have lodged complaint in the complaint book which is always available with on duty TTE and Guard. But no such complaint was lodged by the complainant or by any other passengers in the said compartment with the on duty TTE. As regards this, the complainant mentioned that it was not possible for a passenger to carry his luggage with him while being on board searching for the on duty TTE to lodge a complaint. But this contention of the complainant cannot be accepted at all as the petition of complaint itself amply reveals the presence of the on duty TTE in the reserved coaches. The complainant clearly stated therein that the on duty TTE was found to be roaming inside the reserved coaches i.e. moving from coach No-S/1 to S/4. The said TTE was assigned duty to reserved coaches from S/1 to S/4. That is why, he was found moving inside the said coaches. However, fact remains, no complaint was made with him either by the complainant or by any other passenger of the said Coach. We find from the contention of the respondents and also from the documents submitted on their behalf that following the complaint of the complainant, the respondents enquired the matter and obtained statement of the on duty TTE along with relevant train working chart of the reserved coaches, namely coach No-S/1 to S/4. They also found exceptional data report showing the names of the passengers not turned up and there is also the document showing the passengers who actually turned up for the journey and the said document also finds the name of the complainant. Respondents produced documents, statement of the said on duty TTE who is said to have received a verbal message over telephone about entry of transgender in the said coach and immediately attended but could not find any transgender in that coach. It is further found that the RPF personnel attended the complainant at Dum Dum Junction where a written complaint was lodged by the complainant and the complainant also admitted the same. Be it made clear, we are completely at one with the complainant that if any such incident of presence of unauthorized persons who allegedly tried to occupy seat in the reserved coaches or visiting by eunuch and extortion of money by them from the passengers happened, that would definitely constitute deficiency in service on the part of the respondents inasmuch as the Railways have the responsibility to provide adequate safety and security to the passengers. In order to make the Railways liable for deficiency in service towards their passengers, the allegations need to be proved by way of sufficient cogent evidence. The allegation of extortion by the eunuchs from the passengers as claimed by the complainant on a reserved compartment is a serious allegation. The term ‘extortion’ as defined u/s 383 of the Indian Penal Code goes like this: Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits “extortion”. The punishment for extortion as per I.P.C u/s 384 is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both. This commission, however, is not to try such offence of extortion or pass any order about such offence rather it is to see and consider if any such incident really happened in the reserved compartment as alleged by the complainant. It’s required to be made clear here that we are not unmindful that the evidence of a single witness, if reliable, accompanied by other documentary and circumstantial evidence is sufficient to vindicate the claim of the complainant as to the happening of a particular incident. What we find, so far as this allegation is concerned, complainant is not specific enough in his written complaint and evidence as to whether any money and/or amount thereof was also extorted from him or that he was a victim of such alleged extortion. In this connection, the respondents claimed to have received not a single complaint of any passenger other than the one of the present complainant in connection with the alleged incident of extortion and creation of disturbances by unauthorized persons in the said compartment. No CCTV footage is forthcoming in this case. Had there been any such footage, we could have considered the same in the context of the allegation of the complainant. From the materials on record, it cannot be said that on receipt of the complaint from the complainant through twitter on that day and after the formal written complaint was filed at Dum Dum Junction, no steps were taken on behalf of the Railways or say, the respondents. Rather it is found they took necessary steps towards the grievances of the complainant. In this situation, on the basis of the materials on record and following our discussion as made above, we are of the opinion that the allegations of deficiency in service as made by the complainant on the part of the Railways have not been established. Therefore, the prayer for compensation to the complainant is liable to be rejected. With this, all the points are disposed of accordingly. Hence, it is ORDERED That the instant case be and the same is dismissed on contest. No order as to costs. Dictated and corrected by me. | 
