Failure To Inform Passenger About Change From RAC To Waiting List Is Deficiency In Service: Delhi State Consumer Commission

The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Bimla Kumari (Member), upheld the order of the District Commission holding the Ministry of Railways and Northern Railway guilty of deficiency in service for failing to inform a passenger in advance about the change in his ticket status from 'Reservation Against Cancellation' (RAC) to 'Waiting List'.

The Commission observed that the passenger came to know about the change only at the time of the journey, due to which he could not make alternative arrangements and was compelled to travel in a standing position.

Facts of the case:

The complainant, Saroj Kumar Singh, booked a sleeper class ticket for ₹399 for travel on 31 October 2012 from Anand Vihar to Katihar Junction in the Simanchal Express bearing PNR No. 214/0132355. At the time of booking on 16 October 2012, the ticket status was RAC-43, and the complainant was hopeful that the ticket would be confirmed before the date of journey.

On the day of travel, when he reached Anand Vihar Railway Station, he found from the reservation chart that his ticket status had changed from RAC-43 to Waiting List-44. Railway staff informed him that one coach had been removed due to technical reasons, due to which the berth could not be confirmed. As a result, the complainant had to undertake the entire journey in a standing position from Anand Vihar to Katihar Junction.

Aggrieved, the complainant filed a consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service by the railway authorities. The District Commission held the railways liable for deficiency in service for failing to inform the complainant in advance about the change in ticket status and directed them to pay ₹5,000 as compensation for mental agony and litigation costs.

Challenging this order, the Ministry of Railways and Northern Railway filed an appeal before the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

Contentions of Railway Authorities:

The Ministry of Railways and Northern Railway contended that the complainant was not holding a confirmed ticket, as his booking status was only RAC-43, which does not guarantee allotment of a berth. They argued that the complainant merely expected that the ticket would be confirmed before the journey, which does not create any legal right.

The authorities further submitted that one coach had to be removed due to a technical defect detected during wheel gazing, and since no additional coach was available at the station, the complainant's status changed to Waiting List-44. They also argued that the complainant had the option to cancel the ticket and claim a full refund, and therefore the railway authorities could not be held liable for deficiency in service.

Additionally, they raised an objection that the Consumer Forum lacked jurisdiction, contending that such disputes fall within the jurisdiction of the Railway Claims Tribunal under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

Observations and Decision of the Commission

The State Commission observed that it was undisputed that the complainant had booked a sleeper class ticket for travel from Anand Vihar to Katihar Junction and that his booking status was RAC-43, which later changed to Waiting List-44 on the day of the journey due to the removal of one coach on technical grounds. The Commission noted that the complainant came to know about this change only when the reservation chart was prepared at the station.

The Commission further observed that the railway authorities failed to provide prior intimation regarding the change in ticket status. Due to this lapse, the complainant was unable to make alternative travel arrangements and was compelled to undertake the journey in a standing position, which caused inconvenience and harassment. The Commission held that such failure on the part of the railway authorities amounted to deficiency in service.

Addressing the objection regarding jurisdiction, the Commission held that the Consumer Protection Act provides an additional remedy, and the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora is not barred merely because another forum such as the Railway Claims Tribunal exists.

Accordingly, the Delhi State Commission found no infirmity in the order of the District Commission, upheld the direction to pay ₹5,000 as compensation for mental agony and litigation costs, and dismissed the appeal filed by the railway authorities.

Case No.: FA/150/2020

Case Title: MINISTRY OF RAILWAY AND ANR. VS. SHRI SAROJ KUMAR SINGH

Appearances:

Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma, Counsel for the Appellant.

Mr. Anjani Kumar Singh, Counsel for the Respondent.

Click Here To Read/Download Order