Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/971/2014

Indian Northern Western Railway - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rajmal Jain s/o Anandi Lal Jain - Opp.Party(s)

Balvundar Barar

14 May 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 971/2014

 

Indian Northern Western Railway, Jaipur Railway Station Office of DRM, General Manager, Jaipur

Vs.

Rajmal Jain r/o 1803 Faterpuria ka Darwaja Chora Rasta Jaipur & ors.

 

FIRST APPEAL NO:1016 /2014

 

Rajmal Jain r/o 1803 Faterpuria ka Darwaja Chora Rasta Jaipur & ors.

Vs.

ndian Northern Western Railway, Jaipur Railway Station Office of DRM, General Manager, Jaipur

 

Date of Order 14.5.2015

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

Mrs.Sunita Ranka -Member

Mr.Kailash Soyal- Member

2

 

Mr. Balvinder Singh counsel for the Railways

Mr. Sunil Jain & Mr.Sudeep Jain counsel for the complainants

 

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

Both these appeals have been filed against the judgment of learned DCF Jaipur 3^rd dated 17.9.2014 by which the complaint was allowed.

 

Brief facts giving rise to this dispute are that the 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 accomodated in coach no. B 2 and were allotted berth no. 47, 55 and 63. The complainant's grievance 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 comnplainants have filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service against the railways that till Parasnath the TTE had not allotted them berths though there were

 

3

 

cancellations and vacated berths were allotted to some other passangers after taking convenience fees from them. It is also stated that a complaint to this effect was given in writing to TTE by complainant's son Sudeep Jain in the train on 24.12.2010 at 9.20p.m. The complainants also alleged that they had sought information under the Right to Information Act from the railways requesting them to provide information regarding seats which fell vacant and were available for allotment to RAC passangers but these informations were not provided by the railways under RTI Act. The complainants are further alleged that the TTE misbehaved with them. The railways submitted their reply before the learned DCF stating that complainants had undertaken journey on 24.12.2010 and this complaint was filed after a gap of eight months on 8.8.2011 and normally after six months the reservation record of the passangers is destroyed so no information could be provided to the complainant. The learned DCF however held that the TTE was guilty of misbehaving the complainants and was also guilty of dereliction of duties. The learned DCF further found that when the railways have not provided the required information to the complainants or to the Forum, it has to be inferred that there were seats available to be allotted to the complainants. In the absence of information the

 

4

 

learned DCF held that it had no other option but to accept the affidavits of the complainants.

 

The railways have filed Appeal No. 971/2014 challanging the findings of the learned DCF and Appeal No. 1016/2014 has been filed by the complainant for enhancement of the award passed by the learned DCF.

 

The learned counsel for the railways has argued that under RAC the passangers are not entitled to full berth as these reservations are against spot cancellations. However, two passangers of RAC are accomodated on one seat. The complainants were given sitting seats as no berth had fallen vacant due to cancellations. They further argued that in the absence of record it cannot be adversly assumed against the railways that berths were available as the relevent record is destroyed after six months.

 

On the other hand the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that they had repeatedly contacted the TTE for allotment of seats as seats were fallen vacant and were being allotted to some other passangers in lieu of convenience fees. Thus, TTE was guilty of mis-conduct.

5

 

We have heard the arguments advanced by both the counsels. We have to see whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the railways in not providing berths to the passangers under RAC. As a matter of fact we feel that the RAC passangers have no right to berth unless there are spot cancellations. Admittedly the complainants had no confirm tickets. The learned DCF has only relied on the affidavits of the complainants with regard to the fact that they were not provided the required information under RTI Act and the learned DCF has taken adverse inference and has allowed the complaint. We feel that not providing information under the RTI Act has a different cause of action for the complainant which has a penal provision also and there is an appellate authority under the RTI Act also. To prove the deficiency in service the complainants must prove that the berths were available and there were not provided to them. We agree with the contention of the complainants that this was entirely with the knowledge of the railways and necessary record was in possession of the railways but to prove deficiency it must come on record that despite the complainants were entitled to get confirm tickets they were made to travel under RAC. The complainants has also not made certain facts clear in the complaint. There are six complainants and their RAC waiting

 

6

 

number has not been disclosed in the complaint and it is possible that there were other RAC passangers over them. Secondly this cannot be definitely ascertained whether any spot cancellations were made and against which the complainants had a right to get a confirm berth. It is also not on record that how many spot cancellations took place on that day in this train. There are both possibilities, there may or may not have any spot cancellations. The question of service deficiency can only be established in case one it is established that there were cancellations and complainants were entitled for the berth. We cannot proceed only on the assumption that there might have cancellations and RAC passangers should have been allotted berths. The learned DCF has proceeded on the assumption that TTE misbehaved and was misusing his position, against which a separate complaint against the TTE for misconduct and misbehaviour should be lodged with the department and we cannot also presume that the TTE allotted vacant seats after taking the convenience fees from the passangers. The complainants were not able to state that in their compartment how many seats fell vacant from which station. The RAC list is prepared for the whole train and what was their position in the RAC list is not disclosed.

 

 

7

 

In view of this we are unable to uphold the judgment of the learned DCF Jaipur 3^rd. The appeal no. 971/2014 deserves to be allowed. Consequently the appeal no. 1016/2014 is dismissed.

 

 

Member Member Presiding Member

 

nm