SRI  NILAKANTHA  PANDA,  PRESIDENT

            The complainant has filed this complaint petition, U/s – 12 & 13 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986, read as U/s-35 of C.P.A.-2019 of the new Act (here-in-after called as the “Act”) alleging a deficiency-in-service against the O.Ps, who are Authorities of Indian Railways located at different places.

            That the factual matrix of this case is that on 04/06/2019, the complainant, who is a local resident of Balasore Town, booked a journey-cum-reservation train ticket in Howrah-Puri express bearing No.AA-11675571 from Balasore Railway Station (OP No.2) on payment of Rs.290/- to be travelled on 07/06/2019 from Howrah Junction to Bhubaneswar. At the time of purchase of the said ticket, it was not a confirmed ticket (Waiting Ticket), but subsequently the said ticket was confirmed vide PNR No.6730102524 and to that effect the complainant had received a SMS from the Railway Authorities, regarding the allotment of seat / berth as “S9-31” on the date of journey i.e. on 07/06/2019.

            On the same date, while boarding into the aforesaid train compartment, the complainant searched for his allotted seat as per his ticket / SMS, but found that another person was in occupation and in possession of the said seat allotted in his favour. On being asked, said person stated that he has got the “reserved ticket” for the self-same seat and did not leave the said seat to the instant complainant. Then & there the complainant inspected the ticket of that person and found that the said ticket was not a confirmed reserved ticket, rather, the same is a Reservation Against Cancellation (RAC) one. Being harassed, the complainant searched for the TTE and the Security with a view to bring the matter to their notice, but none was present. Finding no other way out, the complainant contacted the Help Line number of the Railway Department and sent his complainant through SMS to 9717680982, but in vain.

            It is further averred that the complainant is a diabetic patient and throughout the journey he could not able to get a seat in spite of his confirmed reserved ticket, rather, undertook a very painstaking, tiresome, wearisome journey throughout the entire night for which his ailing health condition became worse and as per the advice of his treating physician he took medicine and bed rest for a day. Thereafter, the complainant sent his complaint to the prescribed Website of the Railway Administration on 09/06/2019 which was registered as complaint No W/ER/HOW/000561925. The complainant waited for two days expecting for due redressal of his legal, legitimate and genuine grievances, but it became futile. Thereafter, the complainant one registered representation to the Hon’ble Railway Minister on 12/06/2019 which was delivered on 17/06/2019, but the same also has faced the same fate.

            The complainant has further averred that the complainant has duly discharged his part of onerous and reciprocal duties, as has been enunciated under the Law, but the O.Ps, being the responsible public officials of the Country, did not performed their part of duties, entrusted to them causing irreparable loss, severe injuries, insurmountable difficulties, insoluble predicament, mental tension and agony of unfathomable depth and manifold anguish and physical stress and sufferings. Further, the O.Ps have not settled the legal and legitimate grievances of the complainant nor adhered to it although by efflux of time and reasonable period has already been passed, which is not at all a healthy sign vis-à-vis the same is quite illegal, void, unlawful, misconceived, arbitrary and illegitimate on the part of an essential service provider like the O.Ps. The above illegal, arbitrary, capricious service of the O.Ps are not only sheer deficient in service, negligent in duty, dereliction of duties but also unfair trade practice in nature and character. Therefore, the complainant was constrained to file the present case.

            The cause of action for filing this case arose on 09/06/2019, when the complainant had lodged the claim before the O.Ps. 

            Hence, this case.

            To substantiate his case, the complainant has relied on the following documents, which are placed in the record, as mentioned hereunder-

1. Photocopy of OPD prescription & other medical papers.
2. Photocopy of journey cum reservation ticket of the complainant.
3. Photocopy of SMS regarding confirmation of ticket.
4.  Photocopy of journey cum reservation ticket of other person.
5. Photocopy of web complaints & suggestions portal. 
6. Photocopy of letter sent to Hon’ble Railway Minister, India.
7. Photocopy of registration receipt of letter sent to Hon’ble Railway Minister.
8. Photocopy of track consignment.

             As it appears from the case record that notices were issued against the O.Ps and only OP No.2 made his appearance through its counsel and filed written version. Subsequently, Additional Standing Counsel appeared on behalf of all the O.Ps and filed written version, but the same has not been accepted as it has been filed beyond the statutory period, but kept in the case record for future references. 

            According to OP No.2, the complainant has no cause of action to file this case and the case is not maintainable in the eye of law. It is further averred that the contents of this case are totally false / fabricated. The complainant has not mentioned the number of the ticket which has been booked for journey cum reservation train ticket. Further, the complainant has not complained before any Railway Authority. In the above circumstances, it is prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with cost. No document is filed in its support to substantiate his / their case.

            In view of the above averments of parties, the points for determination in this case are as follows: -

(i)         Whether the complainant is a consumer or not?

(ii)         Whether the complainant has cause of action to file this case?

(iii)        Whether the case is maintainable?

(iv)        Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?

(v)        Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief, as sought for?

(vi)        To what other relief(s), the complainant is entitled to? 

F  I  N  D  I  N  G  S

            First of all, it is to be ascertained as to whether the complainant is a “Consumer” or not. From the pleadings of both the parties and documents produced on behalf of the complainant vide Annexure- 1 to 6, it is established that on 04/06/2019, the complainant purchased a journey cum reservation ticket on appropriate payment of consideration, for hiring / availing “Services” of Railway Administration, for his journey from Howrah Junction to Bhubaneswar by Howrah-Puri Express Train No.12837 on dated 07/06/2019. Therefore, the complainant is well covered under the previews of definition of a “Consumer” as defined under the said Act. 

            To arrive at a just and definite conclusion, it is required first of all, to discuss about the documents produced on behalf of the complainant. From the medical papers vide Annexure-1, it is coming out that the complainant, being an aged diabetic patient, treated himself in Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar. The Annexure-2 is the journey-cum-reservation train ticket bearing No.AA11675571 which was booked on 04/06/2019 and the date of journey was on 07/06/2019 in Howrah-Puri Express from Howrah Junction to Bhubaneswar. It was not a confirmed ticket, rather, the complainant was in the queue of “waiting list”. It is further found in the said ticket, that the ticket was not verified by the TTE during the span of journey. Annexure-3 shows that chart of the passengers was prepared and the ticket for journey by the complainant was upgraded to confirmed with PNR number allotting to coach No. S9 and berth No.31. That on boarding in to the said train the complainant saw one un-known person was in the occupancy of the berth which he was allotted to through confirmation. Upon enquiry the described un-known person showed its document of authority to occupy the seat. Annexure-4 is the journey-cum-reservation ticket which was owned by that person who did not allow the complainant to sit in his confirmed seat No.31. Further, it is found that in the said ticket no coach number or seat number was also allotted to that person, but only mentioned in handwriting as “S9, RAC 31” and the date of journey was on the same day. Annexure-5 shows that the complainant had sent message through web complaints & suggestions portal of the Railway Administration vide complaint reference No.W/ER/HWH/000501925. Annexcure-6 itself speaks that the complainant had lodged his grievance before the then Hon’ble Union Minister of Railway, with regard to his plight during the period of journey in the train in question on the alleged date. The Annexure-7 is the registration receipt showing postal dispatch of the letter in the address and Annexure-8 is the track consignment which shows that the letter sent to Hon’ble Minister of Railway was delivered on 17/06/2019.

            From the above documentary evidence produced on behalf of the complainant, it is established that the complainant did purchase the journey-cum-reservation train ticket on 04/06/2019 to be travelled on 07/06/2019 in Howrah-Puri Express, which was not a confirmed reservation ticket. But, subsequently said ticket was confirmed and a message to that effect was received by the complainant in his cell phone wherein it has been mentioned that the journey-cum-reservation ticket was confirmed with PNR No.6730102524 and allotted SLP1-RC, S9, 31. It is also established that on the date of journey i.e. on 07/06/2019 the complainant boarded the schedule train from Howrah Junction and when arrived near the seat allotted to him in the scheduled coach, he found another person reserved the seat of the complainant, who did not have a valid ticket to occupy the seat in question. Further, on scrutiny of the ticket of that un-known person, the complainant found that it was not a confirmed ticket rather, it was a “RAC” category. However, that person did not leave or offer the aforesaid seat to the complainant for which the complainant was left with no option, rather to travel in the said train by standing throughout the whole night. That as the complainant is a diabetic patient along with other health issues, his health condition became worst and took medical rest as per advice of his treating physician. Day after his recovery, he lodged complaint in the prescribed web portal of the Railway Department on 09/06/2019 which was registered as Complaint No. W/ER/HOW/00561925. As the matter was not resolved, the complainant made registered representation in lieu of grievance before the Hon’ble Union Railway Minister on 12/06/2019 which was delivered on 17/06/2019. All the steps undertaken by the complainant became futile.

            That from the above, it is required to be discussed as to whether the O.Ps are negligent in providing their services towards the complainant or not. As regards to the issues of “negligence” on the part of the O.Ps, a list of duties is prescribed by the Railway Administration itself heading as “TTE for Sleeper Coaches”, which is invoked here for discussion, who (TTE) is the care taker of a coach during journey. Out of the rest of the responsibilities as prescribed for the TTE, the duties arranged against Serial Number 4, 14, 16, & 17 are very relevant in connection to the present case matter. They are -

Serial No.4. He shall check the tickets of the passengers in the coach, guide them to their berth / seats and prevent unauthorized persons form the coach. He shall in particular ensure that persons holding platform tickets, who come to see off or receive passengers do not enter the coach.

Serial No.14. He shall ensure that the doors of the coach are kept latched when the train is on the move and open them up for passengers as and when required.

Serial No.16. He shall ensure that the end doors of vestibule trains are kept locked between 22.00 and 06.00 hrs. to prevent outsiders entering the coach.

Serial No.17. He shall remain vigilant particularly during night time and ensure the intruders, beggars, hawkers and unauthorized persons do not enter the coach.

            According to the above settled responsibilities and duties, a TTE is required to remain very vigilant on the train and ensure no such person other than valid ticket holder should enter in to it, even person holding platform ticket should not also enter the train to see off and / or receive passengers. In addition to it, a TTE is required to latch the couch, lock the doors and ensure no beggars, hawkers, unauthorized persons, intruder enter the couch and ensures every passenger for their safely landing at their destination. At this stage, it is very important to discuss the argument as advanced by the complainant that during the travel time period of the complainant, no TTE and / or any other railway staff visited the couch. To substantiate the above version, the complainant has placed the journey-cum-reservation ticket vide Annexure-2, which is found to have not been checked or counter signed by any of the railway authority. On the contrary, learned Additional Standing Counsel argued on behalf of the O.Ps that the TTE was very much present in the train and for non-checking of the ticket by the TTE itself proved that the complainant did not travel on the scheduled date. In this regard, learned Additional Standing Counsel did not produce any evidence to show that the seat in question was re-allotted to some other passenger or to the said un-known person who owned the ticket of RAC category. That apart, it is the claim of the complainant that he, being in a confused state of mind, requested that person, who occupied the seat of the complainant, to inspect his ticket and on the spot took a snap-shot of the self-same ticket in his mobile vide Annexure-4 and on search it came to light that it was not a confirmed reserved ticket. In this regard, if the complainant had not been boarded the scheduled train on the date of his journey, then how come he collected the ticket of that un-known person in the train? The learned Additional Standing Counsel remained silent and could not show any justifiable reason to that effect. Furthermore, Annexure-5 shows that the complainant had lodged a complaint through the SMS, Web Complaints & Suggestions Portal of Railway Authority during the journey hour which was registered as Complaint No.W/ER/HWH/000501925, which itself proved that the complainant was boarded the train. The Annexure-6 is a grievance application written to the Hon’ble Union Railway Minister. Learned Additional Standing Counsel also remained silent as to why the complainant ventilated his grievance before the apex authority of the Railway Administration was un-answered / not addressed. From the above discussion, it is crystal clear that on 07/06/2019, the present complainant had travelled through the said train in that coach and there was no TTE present in Coach No.S9 nor any other authorized Security Officer was there. Had any of them been present in the coach in question on the relevant day, then this type of situation would have been avoided / sorted. Non-availability of the allotted seat to the complainant and sending of message in lieu of complaint to the Web portal of Railway Administration by the complainant for proper & quick resolution and non-resolution of the complaint by the Railway Authority soon after receipt of the complaint otherwise cast a serious doubt regarding the presence of TTE or any other authorized Security Officer in the coach itself which shows gross and deliberate negligence on the part of the O.Ps and thus, standard level of comfort, security & safety during the journey by the complainant found to have been shattered.    

            From the above analysis supra, this Commission unanimously arrives at a conclusion that the complainant on the date of journey i.e. on 07/06/2019 boarded the schedule train from Howrah Junction and when arrived near the seat allotted to him in the scheduled coach, found another person reserved his seat, who without having a valid ticket to occupy the seat in question. Said person did not leave or offer the aforesaid seat to the complainant for which the complainant has nothing to travel in the said train by standing throughout the whole night. As the complainant is a patient of various diseases, his health condition became worst and took medical rest as per advice of his treating physician. In spite of the complaint lodged by the complainant no one has come forward to resolve the matter even after complaint before the Hon’ble Railway Minister. For the above carelessness nature and conduct of the O.Ps, being service providers, the complainant not only sustained irreparable loss, injury, plight, miseries, and insurmountable difficulties but also suffered mental agony only due to the negligence of the O.Ps, which otherwise attributes a deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Hence, the O.Ps are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

            From the above discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, it is held that the complainant has valid cause of action to file the case and the case is maintainable. Consequently, the complainant is entitled to get the compensation as claimed for as prayed in the complaint petition.          

            Hence, it is ordered -

O   R   D   E   R

            Having regard to the judgement reflected above, the complaint petition of the instant complainant bears merit and hence allowed against O.Ps. That this Commission is of the unanimous opinion that there is a gross deficiency on the part of the O.Ps. Hence, the O.Ps are hereby set liable for its gross deficiency of service. Hence, all the O.Ps are hereby directed to:-

1. That upholding the prayer of the complainant, the O.Ps are hereby directed to refund the value of Ticket booked i.e. Rs 290/-.
2. That upholding the prayer of the complainant, the O.Ps are hereby directed to pay Rs.01,00,000/-, as compensation towards Illegal, Arbitrary & Monopoly attitude towards the complainant.
3. That upholding the prayer of the complainant, the O.Ps are hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs.01,00,000/-, as compensation towards monetary loss & injury incurred.
4. That upholding the prayer of the complainant the O.Ps are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs 50,000/- as compensation towards mental tension & agony.
5. That upholding the prayer of the complainant the O.Ps are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs 49,000/- as cost of litigation.
6. That all the above awarded sum will carry an interest of 09.00%, from date of filling of this case till date of realization of this order.
7. That delay in compliance of any of this order, on the part of the O.Ps, shall carry fine of Rs.01, 000/- (Rupees One Thousand) only, per day, payable by the defaulter O.P/s to the complainant.

            All the aforesaid ordered amounts will be paid by the O.Ps to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.

            That deferment in any manner / mode / reason / step thereof, for compliance of this order, as directed above, the O.Ps, shall carry out with an additional fine of Rs.01, 500/- (Rupees One Thousand and Five Hundred) only, per day and an additional interest of @ 12.00% P.M., upon Order No. 1 to 5, payable by the defaulter O.P/s to the complainant.

            In case of failure by any of the O.P/s to comply any of the orders as above mentioned, within the aforesaid stipulated time frame, the complainant shall be at liberty to realize the same in the shape of cash, kind and / or in any other mode / action as afore mentioned, from the O.P/s as per the prevailing law.

            Pronounced in the open court of this Commission, this the 23^rd day of September, 2024 under my signature & seal of the Commission.