DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.<br /> CC.No.64 of 08.02.2010<br /> Decided on 21.05.2010<br /> Arti aged 35 years wife of Sanjay Chibber, resident of Street No.2, Shiv Colony, Opposite Canal Office, Bathinda.<br /> ......Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> 1. Union of India through its Northern Divisional Railway Manager, Ferozpur Cantt.<br /> 2. Chief Reservation Officer, Northern Railway, Bathinda.<br /> 3. Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, DRM Office, Northern Railway, Ferozpur Cantt.<br /> .......Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM<br /> <br /> Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member.<br /> <br /> Present:-<br /> For the Complainant : Sh. V.P.Singh Khurmi, counsel for the complainant.<br /> For Opposite parties : Sh. Vinod Garg, counsel for opposite parties.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant purchased two tickets No.6298 and 2143 dated 15.11.2009 from Bathinda and got reservation in IInd Class in Train No.2054 Janshtabdi Express Train from Ambala Cantt. to Haridwar in coach No. D-5 vide seat No.40 and 46 which were confirmed on payment of Rs.194/-. When the complainant reached at Ambala and boarded the coach No. D-5 for taking her seat No.40 then some other person was sitting on her seat No.40. The complainant requested the person to vacate her seat but the person did not vacate her seat. The complainant further alleged that the coach No. D-5 was not checked by any officials/T.T.E. of the opposite parties. At Saharanpur Railway Station, husband of the complainant approached the T.T.E. who was sitting in the A.C. coach refused to help the complainant. The complainant passed the journey from Ambala to Haridwar by standing near the door of the coach. When the train reached at Haridwar the complainant made complaint to the Station Superintendent Railway, Haridwar. The written complaint lodged by the complainant was thrown in the dustbin by the opposite parties. The complainant again lodged a complaint regarding the act and conduct of T.T.E. through registered post but the opposite parties neither took any action nor replied to the complaint of the complainant.<br /> 2. The opposite parties pleaded that the complainant has concealed the facts that her seat was earlier in the waiting list and was confirmed later on. The opposite parties further pleaded that the allegations made by the complainant that some other person was sitting on seat No.40 of the complainant. In the written version of the opposite parties, they pleaded that seat number of Sanjay husband of the complainant was 46 which was confirmed whereas seat number of the complainant 40 which was in waiting confirmed later on. <br /> 3. They further pleaded that why the complainant was confused and did not approach the reservation office or ticket collector office at Railway Station for confirmation of the ticket before the departure of the train. If she had approached the T.T.E. at Ambala and even after boarding the train at Ambala there was no reason of not providing seat to the complainant. The concerned T.T.E. of coach No. D-5 and D-6 checked the seats and accommodated the passengers though there was heavy rush on account of Sombati Amavasaya. The complainants were traveling from Ambala to Haridwar. Seat No.46 of the complainant's husband was confirmed but seat No.40 of the complainant was not confirmed. It was in the waiting list but confirm later on in coach No. D-5. When the complainant approached to sit on her seat some other persons were sitting on that seat and refused to give her seat.<br /> 4. The parties have led evidence in support of their respective pleadings. <br /> 5. The arguments heard. Record perused alongwith written submission submitted by both the parties. The opposite parties in para No.2 on merit in their written reply as well as in affidavit given by Dharmendra Kumar, Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager, Northern Railways, Feorzpur have written the same thing. Para No.1 of the affidavit of Sh. Dharmendra Kumar can be reproduced read as under:-<br /> “It is wrong to state that some other person was sitting on seat No.40 of the complainant as alleged. No details have been given of the said person alleged to be sitting on seat No.40. The seat number of Mr. Sanjay, husband of the complainant was 46 whereas seat number of the complainant was 40 which was also confirmed later i.e. why the complainant was confused and did not approach the reservation office or ticket collector before the departure of the train. Had the complainant approached the T.T.E. at Ambala and even after boarding the train at Ambala, there was no reason of not providing seat to her. The concerned T.T.E. of coach No. D-5 and D-6 checked all the seats and accommodated the passengers though there was heavy rush on account of Sombati Amavasaya.”<br /> 6. From the perusal of this abstract it is not clear that- if the ticket of the complainant was confirmed before boarding the train why she cannot be given seat which was reserved for her only. From the perusal of vide Ex.R-2 earlier the seat of the complainant was in waiting list and after words confirmed. The affidavit of T.T.E. Sh. Vikrampreet Singh, Northern Railway, Amritsar can be reproduced as under:-<br /> “The deponent worked as T.T.E. in Train No.2054/2053 from Amritsar to Hairdwar. The deponent was thereon duty in coach No. D-5 and D-6 on 15.11.2009. The deponent performed his duty properly and checked all the passengers. The deponent accommodated all the passengers having confirmed reservation who approached the deponent at the stations or even in the train. The complainant Arti was having seat in waiting list earlier which was confirmed later on as seat No.40. The complainant did not approach the deponent at all nor ever complained to the deponent in the coaches. Had the complainant approached the deponent at the Ambala Station or even in the train, there was no reason of not providing seat to her. The allegations are totally false and baseless. The deponent did not go to the A.C. Coach at all. The deponent never told the complainant that it was not their duty to get the seat vacated or that the complainant may complain to any body as alleged.”<br /> 7. From this abstract the T.T.E. Vikram Preet Singh has admitted the facts that seat No.40 was confirmed in the name of the complainant but he deposed in his affidavit that the complainant has neither approached the deponent at all nor ever complained in the coaches. Had the complainant approached him at Ambala Station or even in the train there was no reason of not providing seat to her. This assertion of T.T.E. shows that he can only provide the seat to those persons who approached him at station or in train even if their seats were confirmed so his affidavit goes against his own version. Moreover in the reply the concerned T.T.E. of the coach No. D-5 and D-6 checked all the seats and accommodated the passengers though there was heavy rush on account of Sombati Amavasaya. This assertion of opposite parties seems to be false as they said that they accommodated the passengers despite heavy rush. Meaning thereby even in the reserved compartments number of passengers was more than the actual number of seats because of Sombati Amavasaya which proves the allegations leveled by the complainant true. Moreover a person cannot file a false complaint for refund of reservation charges only which is very small amount i.e. Rs.97/- unless and until she is aggrieved.<br /> 8. Therefore what has been discussed above there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties especially T.T.E. as it was the primary duty of the T.T.E. to accommodate the passengers having their seats reserved in different compartments and listen to the problems of the passengers if there are any. Moreover as per the page no.66 of the Organization of Commercial Department titled 'in the train' on serial no.7, the checking staff should pay special attention that on the berths reserved for women passengers, no male passenger can sit over those berths. On Serial No.5 – After the departure of the train, the tickets should be checked according the chart.<br /> 9. The T.T.E. has failed to do his duty as after being complained by the husband of the complainant, he should have come to their compartment listen to her grievance but he never approached in their compartment rather took it very lesiurly and lightly. It was his first and foremost duty to accommodate the female passenger who was having a confirmed seat. His act and conduct shows that he was least serious about his duty.<br /> 10. Hence this complaint is accepted with Rs.5,000/- as cost and compensation. As T.T.E. is not one of the opposite parties. Therefore the opposite party No.1 is directed to refund the reservation charges Rs.97/- and to pay the awarded amount of Rs.5,000/- and may recover it from T.T.E. <br /> 11. The opposite party No.1 is directed to make the compliance of this order within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> 12. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. <br /> <br /> <br /> Pronounced (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)<br /> 21.05.2010 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member<br />