ORDER

(Passed on  23/07/2019)

PER SHRI.ATUL D.ALSI, PRESIDENT.

      The complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP Railways in not providing the information about arrival and departure of the train due to which complainants could not board the train and thereby praying for            compensation of Rs.3,75,205/- alongwith interest @24% and further Rs.       10,000/- towards cost of proceeding.

2.       The facts in short giving rise to this petition are that the complainant No.1 who is a senior citizen and a retired teacher, had booked Second A/c Tatkal E tickets for the journey of complainant and his family members  from Ballarshah to Bina junction in special train named “Suvidha Express” paying fair charges of Rs.15,205/-. On the date of journey, the complainant Nos.1 to 5 alongwith their POA holder Adv.Pravin Pise reached to Ballarshah Railway Station from Chandrapur well before the scheduled arrival of the said train.  However, at the Railway Station, the position of the said train was not displayed nor information about its arrival and departure was being announced. Even at the enquiry counter no such information about that special train was available. When the complainants questioned about the same, it was told at the enquiry counter that “Bikaner Suvidha Express” being a special train its data is not feeded in the display board system and hence it could not be flashed on the display board and only manual announcement of such trains is made.  After a short time, there was an announcement that the train will arrive at platform No.4 at 5.25 p.m. Therefore the complainants with their POA reached to plat form No.4. But the train which arrived on that platform was not “Suvidha Express” but the train name was written as “Bikaner Express” and there were no display board on each bogie of the train showing the train number. The complainants enquired about the train with the TC, Vendors and the passengers but no reliable information could be gathered from them. In between, a number of trains arrived and departed from the plat form No.4 but the “Suvidha Express” did not arrive. Hence the complainants again enquired at the enquiry counter, but were surprised to know that the said Suvidha Express recently arrived at plat form No.4 and departed too.  Due to failure on the part of OP Railways to provide arrival and departure position of the train the complainants could not board the train. Hence the complainant lodged complaint in the complaint book maintained at the Railway Station, Ballarshah, Distt.Chandrapur.  After several requests, the railway authorities allowed the complainants to travel in Andhra Pradesh Express which was scheduled 4 hours later, by paying the difference amount of charges between general ticket and reserved ticket, up to Bhopal and thereafter the complainants had to hire Taxi and required to pay Rs.5000/- towards taxi charges.

3.      On 27/5/2016 a reply bearing No.183 Ballarshah/233459/16/5 was received by the complainants against their complaint stating that the Railway department will conduct necessary enquiry from South Central Railway Sikunderabad.  However, no further action was taken. Hence the complainant issued a letter dated 16/9/2016, but the Ops failed to comply and even to refund amount of tatkal tickets of Rs.15,205/-. Therefore, the present complaint has been filed by the complainants.

4.      The complaint is admitted and notices were served on the OPs. The OP No.1 & 3 filed their combined reply and admitted buying of E-tickets by the complainants on the website of IRCTC for their travel from Ballarshah to Bina in special train bearing No.07093 named Bikaner Suvidha Express in Second A/c scheduled at 5.25 p.m.on 22/5/2016 by paying charges of Rs.15,205/-.  However, they denied all adverse allegations against them and further submitted that, the Bikaner Suvidha Express arrived at Ballarshah Railway Station on plat form No.4 at 17.30 p.m. on the penultimate day. Prior to that, due manual announcement was made regarding its arrival. As a result, rest of the passengers who were to board the said train  at Ballarshah named Madhumita in B-2 coach, Mahi in B-1 coach and other passengers who had E tickets, duly boarded the train and there was no complaint in this regard from any of other passenger.

5.           Ops further submitted that the E tickets held by the complainants clearly depicted the name of the train as “BKN Suvidha Express” and the abbreviation BKN stands for Bikaner. Inspite of that the complainants failed to board the train though admittedly they had been there on platform No.4 in pursuance of announcement to that effect made by the Ops. and a train named “Bikaner Express”  arrived and departed in their presence.  This clearly depicts negligence on the part of complainants who failed to board the train in spite of providing due information regarding arrival and departure of the train and even though the display board on the bogies were showing train name.  They further submitted that E tickets are issued by IRCTC and therefore, for refund of the amount the applicant has to follow prescribed procedure regarding cancellation of E tickets. However, as per rules, no refund of E tatkal tickets is allowed within 4 hours before scheduled departure of the train.  Hence for refund of the fair charges, IRCTS was a necessary party to the present petition. There is no negligence on the part of OP Nos.1 to 3.  Therefore the petition deserves to be dismissed with cost.

6.      The OP No.2 filed its reply and denied allegations against it and further submitted that all the bogies of Bikaner Suvidha Express have display boards showing its name as Bikanerer Suvidha Express and further submitted that as per the contention of the complainant, all the complainants reached to the plat form No.4 well within time and admittedly they were standing in front of the train while the train named Bikaner Express stationed at platform No.4. They should have enquired from the TTE, TC or co passengers about the train. Any common man, in ordinery course, would have done so, but the complainants failed to do so even after listening the mannual announcement in respect of arrival of the Bikaner Suvidha Express duly done by the Railway authorities.  Therefore, there is negligence on the part of complainants themselves nand, therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed.

7.      Counsel for the complainant argued that due to non display of train name either on the platform display board and even on the bogies, the complainants though reached to the platform No.4 well within time, could not board the train for want of information about arrival and departure of Bikaner Suvidha Express. Further, inspite of service of legal notice, the OPs have not refunded the ticket reservation charges paid by the complainant towards the journey. This act on the part of OPs amounts to negligence and deficiency in service. Hence the petition may be allowed.

8.        Counsel for the OP Nos.1 to 3 argued that there was due announcement of the arrival of the train in question prior to its actual arrival and even each of the bogies of the said train bear display board on which the name of the express is flashed. However, the complainants were negligent in not making due enquiry with the TTE,TC or co passengers despite they being there on the plat form No.4 when the said train arrived on that platform. Therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed with cost.

9.         OP No.2 further argued that the complainants were responsible for non boarding of the train as there were display boards outside each of the bogies showing name of the train and even announcement about arrival of the train was made by the Railway authorities.   Therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed with cost.

10. We have gone through the complaint, written versions filed by OP No.1 to 3, affidavit, documents and WNA filed by the parties. We have also heard the oral arguments advanced by parties.

                    Points                                                                             Finding

1. Whether the complainant is a Consumer ?                                  Yes

2. Whether  there is defieicncy in service on the part of OPs ?        No

3.  What order ?                                                                  As per final order..

As to issue No.1 & 2

11.      The OPs have admitted in their reply that the complainants have booked Second A/c Tatkal E tickets from the site IRCTC for their journey from Ballarshah to Bina junction in special train named “Suvidha Express” which was scheduled to depart from Ballarshah Junction at 5.25 p.m.on 22/5/2016,  by paying fare charges of Rs.15,205/-.  Admittedly, the complainants had reached to the Railway Station, Ballarshah well within time and in response to the mannual announcement made by the Railway authorities about arrival of the Bikaner Suvidha Express, they reached to plat form No.4 on which the said train was about to reach as per announcement. As per the reply filed by the OP No.2, there were display boards on each of the bogies of said express flashing its name as “BKN Suvidha Express” and the abbreviation BKN stands for Bikaner. Even the E tickets booked by the complainants shows the name of the train as BKN Suvidha Express. The Complainants have admitted in their complaint itself that after announcement of arrival of the train, they reached to platform No.4, and a train named Bikaner Express arrived in front of them on platform No.4 at 17.30 p.m.

12.  As per the passengers charter it is the duty of the passengers to purchase a proper ticket and board the proper train. The facility of electronic display board is not a condition forming part of contract of journey between the passenger and the Railways nor any separate charges are levied for the same. It is a complimentary facility provided by the Railway department to facilitate a smooth and hasslefree journey of the passengers. The complainant’s train was a special one, and such trains are not plyed on a regular basis. Therefore electronic data about the said train was not feeded in the display system. In such circumstances, when admittedly the complainants reached to platform No.4 in response to mannual announcement of arrival of the train, and a train named Bikaner Express arrived in front of them on platform No.4 at 17.30 p.m., it was incumbant on them to make a proper enquiry about the train either with the enquiry counter, TTE, TC, vendors or co-passengers and on confirmation, to board the train. However, they failed to do so. Even the other passengers who boarded the train at Ballarshah had a hasslefree journey and they faced no difficulty about identification of the train. So, there is no negligence on the part of OPs. and the petition is liable to be dismissed as it bears no merit in it.  

As to issue No.3

13.      In view of our observations as above, we pass the following order..

Final order

1. The Complaint No.77/2018 stands dismissed.

2. Parties to bear their own cost.

3. Copy of the order be furnished to both the parties free of cost.

(Smt.Kalpana Jangade (Kute)  (Smt.Kirti Vaidya (Gadgil)     (Shri.Atul D.Alsi)

               Member                                 Member                                    President