NCDRC Holds Railways Responsible For Demanding ‘Original’ Tickets, Orders Refund, Compensation, And Litigation Costs

The Commission modified the decision made by the Lower Consumer Commissions and instructed the Railways to refund the amount of Rs. 5150 with an interest rate of 9% per annum from the journey date with Rs. 5000 as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, and Rs. 25000 as litigation costs before the three consumer commissions.

Brief Facts:

The complainant booked two tickets on the Rajdhani Express to New Delhi and successfully completed the journey. However, upon reaching New Delhi Railway Station, they were stopped by the chief ticket examiner who demanded the original tickets. Despite presenting the booked tickets and relevant documents, the examiner insisted that they did not have the original tickets and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5150 on them.

The complainant lodged a complaint with the District Commission which acknowledged that since the complainant couldn't produce the "original" tickets, the penalty was justified. However, they considered charging twice for the same tickets as ‘deficient service’ and ‘unfair trade practice’. As a result, it ordered a refund of Rs. 4820along with 9% annual interest from the journey day. Additionally, the District Commission awarded Rs. 1000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment, as well as Rs. 1000 as litigation costs.The State Commission upheld the District Commission's decision. Furthermore, they supported the District Commission's ruling that charging twice for the same journey from the same consumer demonstrated a deficiency in service and participation in unfair trade practices.

Contentions of the Parties:

The Railways argued that the complainant failed to present the "original" tickets, and the chief ticket examiner followed the rules by imposing the penalty. It placed reliance on Branch Manager, Indigo Airlines, Kolkata, and Anr vs. Kalpana Rani Debbarma and Ors, wherein Supreme Court held that there can be no 'deficiency in service' or 'unfair trade practice' when an organization's employees are following established rules. The Railways also contended that the claim should have been made before the railway claims tribunal established under the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, rather than the Consumer Commission.

The complainant argued that the imposition of the penalty was unjust and should be fully refunded, along with reasonable interest. They stated that they had carried the tickets provided by the railways' ticketing system and had presented them to the chief ticket examiner, along with the necessary documents and proof.

Observations of the Commission:

The NCDRC observed that reasonably, the tickets would have been checked by the railways’ officers at boarding time of the train and during the journey, which indicates that the officers were not diligent enough. It questioned the notion of "original" tickets and pointed out that the tickets were computer-generated printouts containing all the necessary details. The chief ticket examiner could have easily verified their authenticity through the system or used various other methods to verify the passengers' identities.

It also pointed out that there is no evidence to suggest that the railways conducted any inquiry, and there is no indication that the complainant impersonated other individuals. It is not even the chief ticket examiner's claim that the passengers were without tickets or any supporting documents and they were not traveling in a general compartment without reservations but had reserved berths in advance. Thus, it is challenging to readily accept the claim that "original" tickets were not presented when demanded by the chief ticket examiner.

Further, it observed that despite realizing that the complainant was not at fault, the railways chose to continue pursuing the case before the District Commission, then the State Commission, and now the National Commission. The Commission pointed that the ingredients of ‘deficiency’ as well as ‘unfair trade practice’ are well and truly manifest in the matter and the penalty at New Delhi was most obviously wrongly levied.

The Commission reiterated that it’s a settled position of law that the establishment of Claims Tribunals under the the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 does not in any way infringe upon or fetter the additional alternative remedy available to consumers to seek remedy by instituting a complaint apropos ‘deficiency’ or ‘unfair trade practice’ before the Consumer Commissions.

The Apex Commission directed the chief executive of the Railways to address the matter, fostering accountability and implementing systemic improvements to prevent similar losses and harm to consumers in the future and pointed out that the Railways has the authority to identify those responsible for the incident and recover the awarded amount from them.

The refund has to be made within six weeks failure of which may result in the District Commission taking necessary measures for enforcement and penalty, in accordance with the law.

Case: Divisional Railway Manager, Divisional Office, Northern Railway & 2 Ors. vs Birendera Kumar Paswan

Click Here To Read/Download Order