Date of Filing: 18.04.2009<br /> Date of Order: 23.06.2010<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> <br /> Dated: 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2010<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 905 OF 2009<br /> <br /> Sandeep Narasimhaiah<br /> Akshya, 11/6, 1st Main Road<br /> 5th Cross Junction<br /> Bharathi Layout, S.G. Palya<br /> Bangalore 560 029 Complainant<br /> V/S<br /> 1. The General Manager (Operations)<br /> Indian Railway Catering and Tourism<br /> Corporation Ltd., (IRCTC)<br /> 9th Floor, Bank of Baroda Building<br /> 16, Parliament Street, New Delhi 110 001<br /> <br /> 2. The Director Operations<br /> Centre for Railway Information Systems (CRIS)<br /> Chankya Puri, New Delhi 110 021<br /> <br /> 3. The Chief Public Relations Officer<br /> Public Grievances Cell – Southerm Railways<br /> Chennai 600 003 Opposite Parties<br /> ORDER<br /> By the Member Smt. D. Leelavathi<br /> <br /> The complainant submits that on 3rd Dec 2008 I had booked an e-ticket through IRCTC (Indian Railway catering and Tourism Corporation) website which is an online portal of Indian Railways for booking online tickets. For a 3 tier AC coach seat on train No2657 in order to travel from Chennai to Bangalore on 14th December 2008 as date of travel. The booking was made in Bangalore city over internet through their online portal and payment was made through my savings bank account for which the total fare in current for the said train booking was 524.23p. At the time of booking the online e-ticket for the said train the status of seat reservation was under “WL – 35” number 35 on the date of booking.<br /> The complainant submits that as per IRCTC website and ticket it had indicated that they would update the PNR status regularly through their various online portals for passengers to check the updated seat reservation status .The final PNR No. would be prepared and printed 3hrs before the train departure date and time to be distributed over the to all TTE’s and to be pasted over all the coaches of the said train. The complainant has e-ticket was conformed No. RBS 55 on the date of travel on 14th Dec 2008. Sharing the seat with another co passenger. My number or his name was not listed in the final chart. I checked all charts. I also checked with the Ac coach TTE. He straight away denied that my name was present on the 3tier AC coach chart list and showed me the same. He also told me to occupy any general coach. I moved to general coach or any other coach apart from any of the AC coaches as they would be closing the through passage between the regular general coaches. TTEs told me if I got into any of the Ac coaches I would be disembarked by the Railway police force. Since I had to report to my duties the next day morning I moved to the near coach since I did not have any proof on my online updated PNR No. status with me at that time.<br /> The complainant therefore prays:-<br /> A relief of Rs. 4,99,995/- (Rs. Four Lakhs, Ninety nine thousand nine hundred and ninety five only) be granted to the complainant as demanded herein, which includes all transactional charges listed above and all physical and mental harassments that the complainant has been through during and after the travel and also for the rehabilitation to recover from the harassment. <br /> I request that such orders be passed as the Hon’ble Consumer Forum may deem fit in the circumstances or this extreme case. <br /> I Request that the compensation to be increased four folds in case the complainant looses his job during this hard hit recession period in retaining jobs due to no fault of his (which includes late reporting to work due to sleep and health problems that has raised because of the anguish caused during the train travel). However the complainant is trying hard to report early to work these days and work more hours. It would be very difficult for him if his organization asks him to resign on his own without sighting any reason or in case sights ill health reason to avoid termination of his service that will affect his career. This increased compensation would help him support his family till he gets another job during this hard hit recession period and get rehabilitated from the effects of the harassment that he has been through during the train travel.<br /> 2. Notice was served. Opposite party No. 3 appeared. Opposite party No. 1 & 2 was served but remained absent. Opposite party No. 3 filed his version and evidence.<br /> 3. The opposite party states that he is outside of the jurisdictional limits of this Hon’ble Forum and is not a proper party to the complaint. The opposite party denies the allegations as false. The name of the complainant was printed in the reservation chart for the AC 3 – tier sleeper coach, B3 under the row, RAC passengers and against berth No. 55 meaning that the berth was to be shared between the complainant and another passenger namely, Bharat. On the basis of the information given in the reservation chart, it is evident that Shri Bharat was also in possession of a similar e-ticket as the complainant and did not experience any difficulties in finding his berth. It is also stated that, in fact, a total number of 39 passengers travelled with e-tickets in that particular coach. It is stated that at the time of departure of train No. 2657, Bangalore Mail from Chennai Central to Bangalore city on 14.12.2008, the status of the complainant’s ticket was RB3, 55 i.e. coach B3, RAC berth No. 55 and this information was printed in the reservation chart for coach B3. it is therefore, not correct to state that the reservation chart did not carry information of this fact. A printout of the reservation charts are handed over to each and every Travelling ticket examiner (TTE) of the train concerned well before the departure of the train. It is also therefore not correct to state that the reservation charts were not handed over to the TTEs since without the charts, the TTEs would not be able to either verify the tickets of the passengers or check unauthorized travel and this would result in chaos and subversion of the entire passenger transportation system. It is stated that the complainant ought to entrained coach B3 and occupied berth No. 55 along with the other passenger namely, Shri Bharat. Instead, the complainant had entrained coach S2, which was a reserved second-class sleeper coach and when a member of the headquarters Ticket Checking Flying Squad requested the complainant to produce his ticket for verifying the same, the complainant was unable to produce a valid ticket as a result of which the squad member was constrained to treat the complainant as travelling without ticket. In view of the ticketless travel, the squad member raised demand for payment of penalty plus fare amounting to Rs. 391/- being the charges for the ticketless travel from Chennai Central to Arakkonam, which is the next station where the train would halt and the complainant would have to detrain. The complainant, on the other hand, requested the squad member to permit him to travel the entire distance up to Bangalore city for which he was willing to pay the appropriate fare and penalty. The TTE pointed out that the complainant would not be entitled to any accommodation in the reserved coach. Aware of this condition and in order to travel the entire distance, the complainant pressured the squad member to collect fare and penalty amounting to Rs. 520/- for the journey from Chennai Central to Bangalore city. Had the complainant produced the e-ticket to the squad member or any one of the TTEs and informed him of the current status, he would have guided the complainant to the correct coach, i.e. B3, thereby avoiding payment of fare and penalty. It is also stated that only after the final reservation chart incorporating all changes in improvement in the ticket statuses is printed, is the relevant information hosted online for passenger use. There is therefore no deficiency in service and if there were any defects it would have caused inconvenience to other passengers also who would have given complaints about the same were they to face any such difficulties. It is stated that the complainant had not indicated anywhere in the complaint that he entrained coach B3 on coming to know of the status through online means and did not find his name in the reservation chart passed on the outside of his coach or put up for display in the notice boards at the platforms of the Chennai Central Railway Station or that the coach TTE refused to allow him to occupy berth No. 55. It is for the complainant to clarify why despite having an upper class ticket and knowledge of RAC status of his ticket, he must be detected travelling in a second-class reserved sleeper coach by the squad member. Further, the complainant did not reveal to the squad TTE that he possessed an E-ticket and that the ticket status was B3, RAC 55 for if the complainant had spoken of this fact, the squad member would have checked the same and guided the complainant to his correct berth. There would have arisen no necessity for collecting fare and penalty. The complainant has not come before this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands. It is evident that his intention is only to misrepresent and mislead this Hon’ble Forum and thereby enrich himself unjustly at the expense of the opposite parties whose actions are only in the larger interest of passengers and have not committed even a modicum of an act, which can be labeled negligent or deficient in service. <br /> 4. Affidavit of complainant filed. Opposite party No. 3 filed version and evidence.<br /> 5. Heard the arguments.<br /> 6. The points for consideration are:<br /> 1. Whether there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for refund?<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 7. The complainant has not filed the complaint with clean hands. The complainant did not show the e-ticket nor RBC 55 which the complainant had. There is no deficiency of service. TTE was right in collecting the fine. On 07.05.2009 opposite party has refunded Rs. 336/- to the complainant after filing the complaint. <br /> 8. Asking for physical and mental harassment cannot be granted. His another co-passenger Mr. Bharat was also in possession of a similar e-ticket. He has not experienced any difficulties in finding his berth. A printout of the reservation charts are handed over to each TTE’s well before the departure of train. The complainant ought to have entered coach B3 and occupied berth No. 55 instead he has entered coach S2, even when the ticket checking flying squad the complainant did not produced since he had no ticket of S2, he did not have valid ticket. If he had valid ticket he could have produced the same before the TTE. He wanted to enjoy the S2 berth. So he has occupied the same by deceiving the TTEs by saying that since it was a e-ticket he could not produce. However, I find that there is no deficiency in service. It is evident that he had the intention of only to misrepresent and mislead the forum. Hence, for the above reasons we proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> 9. The complaint is dismissed. No cost.<br /> 10. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 11. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2010. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> MEMBER <br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER PRESIDENT<br />