( Passed on dated 30^th  March, 2016 )

Per Shri Atul D. Alsi – Hon’ble President.

              The complainant is a Bachelor of Architecture from Visvesvaraya College of Engineering, Nagpur.  He is also a post graduate in Law (i.e. LL.M.), in Business Administration (MBA), Diploma in Consumer Law having secured Gold Medal from Nagpur University and did certificate course in Human Rights.  The complainant is a resident of Tumsar and practicing as Architect and valuer at Tumsar and Gondia.

2.            The complainant wanted to go to Udaipur with his family.  He sought and obtained the Blank Paper Ticket (hereinafter called BPT) from Mahasamund to Udaipur via Bhopal, Ratlam and Mandasor with Break journey at Mandasor.   The O. P. No. 2 i.e. PRS Supervisor Mr. Shahu issued the reservations as under :

     a)       Mahasamund to Bhopal by 12807, dated 29/06/2014.

     b)      Bhopal to Ratlam by 22910, dated 30/06/2014.

     c)       Ratlam to Mandasor dated 30/06/2014 with break journey at Mandasor.

     d)      Mandasor to Udaipur by 19327, dated 03/07/2014.

3.            For the above said journey, the Railways have charged for the total distance of 1909 Kms..  However, the complainant noticed that the actual distance of the journey works out as under:

     a)       Mahasamund to Bhopal - 743 Kms.

     b)      Bhopal to Ratlam   -        280 Kms.

     c)       Ratlam to Mandasor  -     84 Kms. &

     d)      Mandasor to Udaipur -    219 Kms

                                  Total =        1326 Kms.  

     That means Railways have charged for the excess distance of 583 Kms.

4.            Hence a complaint has been made by the complainant on 30/05/2014 at Railway Station, Gondia.  Similarly, a complaint has been sent to Sr.DCM, SEC Railway, Nagpur by courier, duly received by him on 03/06/2014 for refund of excess amount but in vain.

5.            The complainant was to commence the journey on 29/06/2014 but in the meantime, due to change in programme, he intended to terminate the journey at Mandasor instead of Udaipur.   Hence, the complainant cancelled the reservation from Mandasor to Udaipur.  And he intended to surrender the BPT at Mandasor in order to obtain Ticket Deposit Receipt for claiming refund of the untravelled journey from Mandasor to Udaipur.

6.            On 29/06/2014 i.e. the date of commencement of journey, the waitlisted ticket has been confirmed in S-6 for his mother and in S-3 for the complainant i.e. 3 coached in between including Pantry Car.  On the date of journey, the train was overcrowded with unauthorized passengers in all the coaches occupying every inch of the berths, corridors, vestibules’ and even below the berths.   There was hardly any space even to walk up to the berth        or movement there from to toilet.  These unauthorized passengers were in fact the job aspirants returning from their exam conducted by Railways at/towards Raipur and going beyond Bhopal.   With great difficulty, the complainant accommodated his mother to her berth in S-6.  The conductor collected the difference in fair in S-6 coach but did not do anything to evacuate the unauthorized passengers from the coach, despite request.   For the whole night, the complainant was greatly inconvenienced in going to the toilet or making a movement up to washbasin etc.  The TTE’s were seen in the coach no. S-3.    Hence the unauthorized passengers could not be evacuated and the journey up to Bhopal was a nightmare.        

7.            At Mandasor, the complainant approached the Station Master for surrender of ticket for issue of TDR.  The Station Master first stated that he does not know about TDR but when explained, he referred the complainant to the Booking Clerk, who flatly refused to oblige stating most arrogantly that it is not admissible.  As a result, a complaint has been lodged on 30/06/2014 with the Station Master, Mandasor.

8.            The railways have charged for the excess distance of 583 Kms.  They are under an obligation to correctly calculate the distance and prepare the BPT.  The calculation of distance by railway authorities from a longer route burdening the complainant with fare of 583 kms. is unlawful, unjust and amounts to unjust enrichment. 

9.            The complainant terminated his journey at Mandasor.  Hence, he was entitled to get the TDR so that the refund for the untravelled portion could be claimed.  The Station Master of Mandasor did not give the TDR and the said grievance has been recorded by complainant in the complaint book.  This also amounts to deficiency in service.

10.                   The complainant and his mother has been greatly inconvenienced due to unauthorized passengers in the coaches.  The T.C. of S-6 coach could not evacuate the unauthorized passengers and the TC of S-3 could not at all turn up in the coach.  The Section 57 of the Railway Act, 1898 prescribed maximum number of passengers in the coaches.  Almost, thrice the number of passengers in all the coaches is gross violation of Section 155 (1) of Railway Act, 1898.  The Railway administration very much failed in its mandatory duty to ensure the coaches free from unauthorized passengers.  The inconvenience meted out to the complainant and his mother amounts to deficiency in service.

11.                   The complainant has prayed to direct the respondent to refund the excess amount charged by it due to excess mileage with interest and also prayed to direct the respondent to refund the amount of fare for the journey not undertaken i.e. from Mandasor to Udaipur.  The complainant has prayed to award damages of Rs. 25,000/- for the inconvenience caused to the complainant and his mother who is a aged lady, due to unauthorized passengers in the coaches and failure of the administration to evacuate them and also prayed to award damages of Rs.25,000/- for the harassment and agony caused to the complainant.

12.                    The complaint is registered and issued notices to opposite parties.    After receiving notices the opposite parties appeared before the Forum through their counsel and filed their written statement.

13.                   In the written statement the opponent submitted that, the BPT reservation by train No. 12807 was issued as per requisition of complainant.  At the time of booking of BPT reservation from  Mahasamund to Udaipur in train No. 12807 as per requisition of complainant, the concerned reservation clerk had given advice to complainant to choose some other train route as per computer system was displaying message that “BPT distance is more than train journey distance”.   In spite of specific advice of concern booking clerk, the complainant insisted to issue BPT of train No. 12807 as the status of availability of berth in other trains was dim.  Thus the BPT was issued in train No. 12807 to complainant as per his requisition and knowledge that BPT of train No. 12807 shows more distance than train journey distance, as such there is no deficiency in service on part of opposite party.

14.                   It is submitted that the complainant was duly informed that there was only one train no. 12807 is available from Mahasamund to Udaipur and the BPT facility available in the said train is showing distance 1909 kms.  It is submitted that, if the complainant was not satisfied with distance or fair of BPT reservation in train No. 12807, the complainant could have immediately cancelled BPT reservation.  It is further submitted that no one had forced the complainant to travel in BPT reservation in train No. 12807 and as such the complainant had no locus to file present complaint.

15.                   It is submitted that, it is not disputed that complainant had cancelled the reservation of two persons for journey dated 03/07/2014 from Mandasaur to Udaipur.  It is further submitted that, the railway authority had not received a single complaint from any passengers regarding unauthorized passengers.

16.                   It is submitted that complainant had claimed TDR for the purpose of claiming refund of the untravelled portion of the journey which is not permissible as per the extant Railway refund rules.  It is submitted that as per the refund rules, only under special circumstances like band, agitation or floods etc., TDR (Ticket Deposit Receipt) shall be issued to the passengers in case of partially used tickets.  The TDR was rightly refused to the complainant since there were no such special circumstances as laid down in the refund rules.

17.                   It is submitted by the O. P. that, the whole prayer of complainant is specifically denied as false, baseless and illegal.  The opposite party had not committed any deficiency in service as specifically mentioned above, hence not legally liable for payment of damages Rs.25,000/- to complainant.  As such the complaint is liable to be dismissed with compensatory cost in the interest of justice.

18.                   The complainant filed documents as per list at page no. 14 to 18, page no. 42 to 46 and page no. 59 to 63 on record.

19.                   The learned counsel for complainant Mrs. D. G. Doye argued that, the requisition for reservation from Mahasamund to Udaipur via Bhopal, Ratlam and break journey at Mandsore has been made by the complainant.   The route via Bhopal i.e. instant route undertaken by complainant is a normal reasonably direct and the shortest whereas, the one via Mathura, of which he has been charged is the second longest in respect to distance as well as time taken.  The route for which, complainant has been charged is longer by 583 kms and takes exactly 12 hours more than the route preferred by the complainant.  Extract of Railway map showing all the routes in question is annexed as Annexure-VI.  More so, Mandsore station where the break journey was intended does not fall on any other route.  There is nothing like “BPT facility being available in the train shows distance 1909 kms.”  The wrongly fed data in the computer system does not entitle respondents to charge more than the distance traveled.

20.                   The TDR means a receipt for the ticket deposited.  Deposit of ticket is evidence that the person has not undertaken the journey.  The respondents have yet not filed any such circular whereby, the refund to the complainant can be denied.  The Secretary, Railway Recruitment Board, SEC Railway Bilaspur has provided information relating to exam conducted by Railways on 29/06/2014 vide letter dt. 30/04/2015 annexed herewith at Annexure-X.  He has admitted that the alleged railway exam has indeed been conducted in Bilaspur zone on 29/06/2014.  He admitted to have issued 394 passes to SC/ST candidates for their return journey towards Bhopal, Itarsi & Nagpur.  He informed that 8940, 7700 and 12685 candidates appeared for railway exam at Bilaspur, Raipur and Bhilai-Durg respectively on 29/06/2014.

21.                   Any smallest fraction out of total 29,325 candidates who might have returned towards Bhopal by Train No. 12807 i.e. Samata Express were quite enough rather more than enough to overcrowd the train to the extent of thrice its capacity as alleged by complainant.

22.                   The conductor of S-6 did not do anything to evacuate the unauthorized passengers and the conductor of S-3 did not at all turn up.  He did not collect the difference in fare from the reserved passengers unlike conductor of S-6.  This is so because due to overcrowding, he could not enter into the compartment and must be resting somewhere else.

23.                   The BPT can not be linked with the train, it has to be for the normal shortest distance on a reasonably direct route, TDR can not be denied, though the refund can be if there is any such circular and inconvenience to the passengers due to overcrowding amounts to deficiency in service.   It is therefore requested that the complaint may kindly be allowed and compensation in terms of the prayer clause may kindly be awarded.

24.                   The learned counsel for O. Ps. Mr. S. B. Rajankar  argued that,  the booking clerk has rightly issued the BPT as per requisition made by the complainant.  The T.D.R. refused may be given in special circumstances where situation beyond the railway authority to run the train.  Hence, the complainant is not entitled for refund as per refund rules under Railway Act.  Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed with cost.

25.                   After hearing and going through the complaint and reply the following points came to be consideration.

REASONING & FINDINGS

26.                   The complainant availed the services by paying necessary ticket charges hence the complainant is “Consumer” under Sec. 21 (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Hence issue no. 1 is decided accordingly.

27.                   The complainant planned to go to Udaipur with family from Mahasamund therefore submitted a requisition for reservation at Gondia railway station.  The complainant applied for Blank Paper Ticket (in short BPT) as per Sec. 210 of Railway Manual  Chapter II Structure and Objectives of Railway Management.  The complainant has got B.P.T. from Mahasamund to Udaipur via Bhopal, Ratlam and Mandasor with break journey at Mandasor.   For the journey O.P. has charged for total distance of 1909 kms, but actual distance of journey works out 1326 kms.   Therefore 583 kms. excess charges were charged.  Therefore, the complainant made complaint with opposite parties.

28.                   The complainant applied reservation under B.P.T. from Mahasamund to Udaipur via Bhopal, Ratlam and break journey at Mandasore.   As per Sec. 259 of Railway Manual - Chapter II– Structure and Objectives of Railway Management, “Booking clerks must enquire from passengers the route by which they intend to travel and issue tickets accordingly.”  The distance as per chart of Indian Railway is filed about mileage at Page No. 59 disclosed that the actual kilometer is 1326 kms. for Mahasamund to Udaipur via Bhopal, Ratlam.  But the mileage charged by O.P. for same route is 1909 Kms.  as per chart filed on page No. 58, 59, 60, 61 and 62.   The route traveled by complainant is 1326 kms. and charges charged by O. P. for the distance of  1909 kms.   The ticket of train No. 12807 was given to complainant; it goes to Bilaspur to Nizamuddin and in order to Udaipur.  The route for which complainant has been charges to longer by 583 kms. and it takes 12 hrs. extra time.  As per Sec. 260 of Railway Manual  Chapter II  Structure and Objectives of Railway Management, correction in B. P. T. paper tickets is prohibited otherwise it is treated as “Non-Issued”.

29.                   The O. P. has not filed requisition slip of reservation of B.P.T. submitted at reservation counter at the time of reservation even after direction was given to O.P. to file it on record  vide order dated 18/03/2016, but the O.P. failed to file the same on record.   Hence, the contention of O.P. that the tickets were issued as per requisition slip can’t be accepted.  Therefore, the O.P. have committed negligence of service by not providing reservation   of Mahasamund to Udaipur by shortest route and charged excessive charges for 583 kms. longer route charges when  as per Indian Railway Map shortest route was available and which was demanded by complainant as per requisition reservation under B.P.T. facility.  The act of opposite parties is contravention of rule 251 of Railway Manual  Chapter II Structure and Objectives of Railway Management, for not issuing tickets of shortest route when it was available as per Railway Act.  Hence the railway authority either issue B. P. T. for shortest route or if not available then should have rejected the requisition for B. P. T.   It amounts to deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.  Therefore issue No. 2 is decided accordingly.

30.                   On 29/06/2014, the complainant along with his mother and family were traveling from Mahasamund to Bhopal by train No. 12807 in bogie No. S-3, but due to excessive unauthorized passengers there were no space to go to toilet and for movements.  As per information given by O. P. as per requisition made under Right to Information Act of 2005 for the examination conducted at Bilaspur on 29/06/2014, the candidates who attended the examinations were 45,887 candidates.  The complainant deposed on oath before Forum that there were excessive unauthorized passengers who were returning from railway examination was occupied in bogie and the ticket collectors were not available to remove them from bogie.  The railway authority has not attached extra bogies for the candidates who appeared for railway examination as per information provided as per Right to Information Act by O. P. which is filed on page no. 44 & 45 on the record.

31.                   Therefore, after taking reservation charges the basic facilities were not provided by O. P..  Therefore, it amounts to negligence on the part of O. P.   Hence issue no. 3 is decided accordingly.

32.                   Due to change in programme, the complainant intended to terminate the journey at Mandasor instead of Udaipur, hence complainant cancelled the reservation only not ticket for the journey dated 03/07/2014 from Mandasor to Udaipur on 23/06/2014 and claimed Ticket Deposit Receipt for the untravelled journey and claiming refund from Mandasor to Udaipur.  But, the allegation of complainant was that the opposite parties failed to issue refund by way of Ticket Deposit Receipt (TDR) for untravelled tickets.   As per railway reservation rules, the refund order by way of ticket deposit receipt (TDR) are given for tickets with reservation tickets only.  No refund order in form of T. D. R. is issued for general tickets.   No Ticket Deposit Receipt is issued hence there is no negligence on the part of O.P. for not issuing T.D.R. for unused tickets.  Therefore, the issue No. 4 is decided in negative.

33.                   The opposite party fails to provide requisite services as per issue no. 2 & 3 and thereby the complainant and his old aged mother have to suffer great hardship without any fault on the part of complainant, hence for inconvenience and for mental torture and agony, the O. P. are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation to complainant as per following order.

                        -: ORDER :-

1.            The complaint is partly allowed.

2.            The Opposite Parties are directed to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for mental torture and agony to the complainant along with Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation jointly and severally.

3.            The opposite parties are directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.