The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad, partly allowed the complaint, observing that failure of railway authorities to prevent unauthorized passengers from occupying reserved seats and to ensure a safe and comfortable journey is a deficiency in service and awards compensation.
The case arose from a complaint filed by the complainants, who had booked tickets in Train No. 16382 Kanyakumari-Pune Express for travelling from Ottappalam to Tirupati on September 25, 2023. While the first and second complainants had confirmed berths, the ticket of the third complainant later got confirmed. Upon boarding the train, they found that many unreserved, waiting list, and ticketless passengers had occupied their seats. Despite several efforts, no ticket examiner (TTE) or RPF personnel could initially be located, and the rush in the reserved compartment kept increasing with passengers sitting and sleeping on the floor and under berths. Aggrieved by the same, the complaints were lodged through the Rail Madad application, and though assurances were given, the situation persisted, causing inconvenience, discomfort, and mental agony, particularly to the elderly complainants.
The opposite parties, on the other hand, admitted the booking and travel but contended that enough staff were deployed, complaints were promptly forwarded, and unauthorized passengers were removed by TTE and RPF. It was further submitted that there exists no deficiency in service and that the complaint was filed to seek monetary benefit only at a later stage.
Hearing the complaints, the commission consisting of Vinay Menon V. (President), Vidya A. (Member), and Krishnankutty N.K. (Member) noted that the Ministry of Railways was not an unnecessary party and that the complaint was maintainable. On Merits, it was observed that although the opposite parties claimed to have taken action, no evidence was adduced to prove the removal of unauthorized passengers. Whereas the photographs and materials produced by the complainants clearly showed a crowded situation in the coaches.
Upon finding that the opposite parties, being service providers, failed in their duty to ensure a safe and comfortable journey, which constitutes deficiency in service, the complaint was allowed, partly, and the opposite parties 1 to 4 were directed jointly and severally to pay Rs. 50,000 as compensation and Rs. 25,000 as litigation cost within 45 days, failing which solatium at ₹500 per month would accrue, and the prayer for refund of ticket fare was declined as the journey had been completed.
Appearances:
For Complainants- party-in-Person
For Opposite Parties- Advocate G. Jayachandran
