KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL  NO. 313/12

JUDGMENT DATED:27.11.2012

PRESENT

SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

K.G.Mohanan,

TC.31/623(3), Saranya,

S.N.Nagar-61, Pettah.P.O,                       : APPELLANT

Thiruvananthapuram-695 024.

          Vs.

1.      The General Manager,

Southern Railway,

Chennai-600 003.

2.      The Railway Divisional Manager,

Thycaud, TVPM.                                       : RESPONDENTS

3.      Shri.K.Ravindran Nair,

Railway TTE concerned.

(To be notified through the Railway Divl. Manager, TVPM)

(By Adv:Sri.Renganathan)

JUDGMENT

SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER

The appellant was the complainant in CC.360/10 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram.  The complainant was a passenger in the Thiruvananthapuram Central to Mumbai CST train (Cape Mumbai Express Train No.6382) on 20.6.2010 along with his son.  It is alleged in the complaint that they were passengers with RAC status in S3 coach of the train.  Such passengers were assured of 2 seats even from the onset of the journey.  In the status report prepared by the railway berth No.63 was provided for them.  Hence the complainant occupied seat Nos.63 and 64 placed at both ends of berth No.63. When the train reached Thiruvalla railway station the TTE manning the coach allotted seat No.64 occupied by the son of the complainant to another passenger who boarded the train from Quilon junction.  The TTE also removed the son of the complainant from that seat and restricted them to one seat for travel during the rest of the journey.  The action of the TTE was utter injustice and he had reduced the facility offered to the complainant and his son at the onset of the journey.  As they were unable to continue the journey they alighted at Thiruvalla station and they lodged complaint with the station master.  But the railway authorities have not so far considered the complaint lodged by them.  Hence they approached the Forum for compensation and other reliefs.

2.      The opposite parties contended before the Forum that the status of the ticket held by the complainant and his son was only RAC and they had no confirmed berth but they could only occupy the seat marked against their names till they were allotted a confirmed berth.  In the case of the complainant and his son the seat allotted was seat No.63 in S3 coach.  Seat No.64 was allotted to a passenger named Raji Raju for travel from QLN-KJT with confirmed berth No.64 during day hours.  The complainant and his son had seat numbers clearly printed in the chart as 63 together.  As such they had to occupy seat No.63 together. But they occupied both seat Nos.63 and 64.  Hence the ticket examiner of coach No.S3 had to intervene based on a complaint lodged by Smt.Raji Raju that her seat No.64 was being forcibly occupied by the complainant and his son.  It was the duty of the ticket examiner to allot berth and seats as per the chart and priority fixed in it.   As such the ticket examiner had politely requested the complainant to vacate seat No.64 and further explained that seat No.63 had to be occupied by the complainant and his son.  They contended that it is incorrect to say that complainants were assured of 2 seats even from the onset of the journey.  The occupation of seat No.64 by the complainant was illegal.  The ticket examiner did not force or even request the complainant to detrain at any point of time.  He was only told that he had a chance of getting berth.  No inconvenience or violation of rule was caused in this matter.  Hence the complaint was liable to be dismissed.

3.      Before the Forum the complainant gave evidence as PW1, Exts.P1 to P8 were marked on his side.  The opposite parties adduced no oral evidence.  Exts.D1 to D3 were marked on their side.  The Forum held that the complainant occupied 2 seats on a mistaken belief and accordingly dismissed the complaint.  Hence the appeal.

4.      The only question that arises for consideration is whether the complainant had the right to occupy 2 seats, he being a passenger with RAC status.

5.      Admittedly the complainant had booking for 2 seats for travel from Thiruvananthapuram to Mumbai CST but had got only the ticket having RAC status in S3 coach.  His grievance is that he was assured of 2 seats from the very start of the journey.  But was asked to vacate one of the seats when the train left Changanassery railway station. This is denied by the opposite parties.  According to them  persons with RAC status together are provided one seat and they have to occupy the same and wait till their turn arrives to occupy a vacant seat and berth.  The learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that the system of reservation against cancellation and permitting passengers to travel in the coach itself was introduced with the dual intention of preventing journey with vacant seats and berth in trains as well as for providing as much convenience to passengers as possible.  In Ext.P7 it is mentioned that passengers whose names figure in the RAC list are provided reserved sitting accommodation initially and are likely to get berth on becoming vacant  due to last minute cancellation of reservation or passengers not turning up in time before the departure of the train.  The complainant’s belief that since he has reserved 2 seats he was entitled to 2 sitting accommodation even from the start of the journey appears to have arisen from the above wording of the relevant regulation.  The above regulation some what lacks clarity.  However the practice appears to be quite clear.  It is seen from Ext.P8 status report that initially the complainant and his son were in the waiting list.  In due course of time due to cancellation of reserved seats their status became RAC and only one seat was allotted against the names of both the complainant and his son in fact when the confirmed ticket holder with seat No.64 and berth No.65 occupies the berth at night, the complainant and his son would get 2 seats by way of sitting accommodation.  But this is for night travel only.  In the meanwhile there was every chance for them to get a confirmed berth also.  But the complainant and his son seems to have hastily detrained at Thiruvalla and lodged the complaint.  The question is whether there was any violation of the regulation framed by the railways, or there was any deficiency of service.  On the facts and circumstances disclosed it cannot at all be said that the ticket examiner acted erroneously or that there was deficiency of service on the part of the railways.  It follows that there is no merit in the appeal.  Hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

In the result the appeal is dismissed.  No costs.

K. CHANDRADAS NADAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

VL.