1.      This revision petition has been filed by the complainant, Rajmal Jain &Ors. against the order dated 14.05.2015 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (in short ‘the State Commission’).

2.      Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had travelled from Jaipur to Parasnath on 24.12.2010 by Train No.2308 A (Bikaner Howrah Superfast).  The complainants were initially on waiting list number 9 to 14 later on their waiting tickets were converted to RAC.  They were accommodated in coach No.B 2 and were allotted seats on berth no.47, 55 and 63.  The complainant’s case is that on enquiry from the TTE they were assured that after Agra they will be allotted independent berths and till Agra they will have to travel on sitting basis.  The complainants have filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service against the railways that till Parasnath the TTE had not allotted them berth though there were cancellations and vacant berths were allotted to some other passengers after taking convenience fees from them. 

3.      Finding deficiency in service, the complainants filed consumer complaint before the District Consumer Protection Forum, No.1 Jaipur, Mahanagar, (in short ‘the District Forum’), which passed following order on 17.09.2014:-

        “In connection with the above journey the complainants are entitled to get from the Opposite party a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) in one lumpsum for the aforesaid mental tension, physical troubles and inconvenience.  Towards litigation expenses the applicants are entitled to get 11,000/- (Eleven thousand) rupees from the Opposite party.

The Opposite parties will get the entire of the above amount in equal proportion.”

4.      Aggrieved with the above order of the District Forum, the opposite party as well as the complainant preferred First Appeal No.971 of 2014 and First Appeal No.1016 of 2014 respectively before the State Commission.  The State Commission vide its order dated 14.5.2015 allowed the appeal No.971 of 2014 filed by the opposite party and dismissed the appeal No.1016 of 2014 filed by the complainant.  

5.      Hence the revision petition by the complainants.

6.      Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.

7.      Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the complainants are senior citizens and were travelling from Jaipur to Parasnath on 24.12.2010 and had RACT reservations.  Train Ticket Examiner (TTE) had promised them to give independent berths from Agra, however, no independent berth was allotted to any of the complainants till the end of the journey. There were many berths still vacant due to cancellation and non-turning of the reserved passengers, but the vacant berths were allotted to other passengers and not to these RAC passengers who had the first right to these berths. Learned counsel also argued that no record was produced by the opposite party- Indian North Western Railway giving the position of cancellation of reservations or no show of passengers on the train on that date.  Had the records been produced before the District Fora or the State Commission, the position would have been clear.  The petitioners tried to obtain the same information under the Right to Information Act (RTI), but to no avail.  The State Commission has erred in observing that the complainants did not produce any proof that there were vacant berths and they were allotted to other passengers instead of the complainants. The records are in the possession of the opposite party and the same were not supplied to the complainants inspite of their application under the RTI Act. The State Commission has not appreciated this fact, whereas the District Forum had rightly come to the conclusion that opposite parties were deficient in service.

8.      The learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party stated that the complainants have not indicated in their complaint as to which berth numbers were allotted to other passengers out of turn.  The Complainants have only made a general statement alleging that the vacant berths were allotted to outside passengers.  In this regard an affidavit has been filed by Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, North-Western Railway, Jaipur, before the District Forum, wherein he has specifically given the details of reservations in respect of all the berths of that coach and passengers of those reserved berths kept on going out and other reserved passengers coming to travel on those berths. The complainant has nowhere stated this fact in the whole of the complaint that TTE had allotted when at what place and which seat to unreserved ticket holders.   

9.      Learned counsel for the respondent also mentioned that the information about individual reservations and passengers could be supplied under the RTI to the complainants because this information is kept for only six months and complaint has been filed after 8 months.  The State Commission has rightly observed that under the RTI Act, there is a separate system of Appellate Authority and then the State Information Commission and National Information Commission. if the complainants were not satisfied with the answers given by the Public Information Officer of the opposite party, than complainants should have taken further course of action to get the information. As no information could be produced under the RTI, because the records were already destroyed, no deficiency can be presumed on the opposite party as has been done by the District Forum.  The State Commission has only rectified this mistake of the District Forum.  The State Commission has gone into all aspects of the complaint and has decided all the issues.  The petitioner has not been able to find any specific lacuna in the order of the State Commission. 

10.   We have carefully considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and have gone through the records.  In the order dated 14.05.2015, State Commission has clearly observed that the complainants have not specifically mentioned their RAC numbers , which could give an idea whether any RAC passengers above them or below them were allotted berth or not.  The complainants have also not given any specific berth numbers that were allotted to outside passengers. Though, they had given a complaint/notice on the same date to the TTE in respect of berths being allotted to other passengers and not to them as RAC passengers, the complainants have made only general allegation that vacant berths were allotted to other passengers.  Had the complainants given the specific berth numbers that fell vacant against cancellation, or which berths were allotted to other passengers, then it would have become easier for the opposite party to look into the matter and to give specific reply.   In general the affidavit filed by Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, North-Western Railway, clearly mentions the reservations details of all the berths in the coach and they were reserved from one place to another and then from that place to other further places.  We also agree with finding of the State Commission that If the information was not supplied by opposite party under the RTI Act, the complainants should have applied before the Appellate Authority and other higher authorities under the RTI Act. There is no record on the file to show that there were some berths which fell vacant after cancellation of reservations, and the same were allotted to other passengers.  The main burden to prove this was on the complainants who have failed to produce any such documents.  In these circumstances, we are of the view that the complainants have not been able to establish their case in the complaint.

11.   Based on the above examination, we find that there is no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 14.05.2015 of the State Commission, which calls for any interference from this Commission.  Accordingly, the RP No.1859-1860 of 2015 filed by Rajmal Jain&Ors., petitioners, stand dismissed with no order as to costs.