1. THE complainants have prayed for appropriate redressal alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Railway Administration. THE complainants case is that they purchased their tickets from the reservation counter of Indian Railway at Cuttack for their journey from Cuttack to Tirupur via Madras. On 25.9.1993 they got reservation for their journey from Cuttack to Madras by Coromondal Express. THEy also wanted their return ticket with reservation from Madras to Bhubaneswar on 30.9.1993 by the same train. Though they had paid money for the purpose and necessary message requesting for reservation of their berths was sent from Cuttack Railway Reservation Office, they were however advised to enquire about the confirmation of their reservation at Madras Central Reservation Enquiry Counter before boarding the train. Since the system of reservation had been computerised by then, they were issued reservation tickets from Madras to Bhubaneswar by Coromondal Express on 30.9.1993. It is alleged that on 30.9.1993 they enquired from the Reservation Inquiry Counter at Madras for confirmation of their reservation and the Railway employee who was in the counter informed them that they have to travel in berth Nos. 4 and 6 in Coach No. S-11. THEy accordingly boarded the train (Coromondal Express) and occupied berth Nos. 4 and 6 in Coach No. S-11. After the train left Madras Station, the T.T.C. attached to the coach came with two other persons and asked the petitioners to vacate the berths. When the reservation tickets were shown to him, T.T.C. replied that the destination in their tickets and the chart are contrary and they were compelled to alight from the train. It is also stated that they had approached the Train Superintendent who was in the A.C. Coach, but he turned deaf ear saying that the T.T.C. has correctly done. At Bijaywada Station, the T.T.C. forcibly pushed the petitioners to get down from the train and threw away their luggages from the coach for which they had to make their own arrangements from Bijaywada to Bhubaneswar by some other train by purchasing their tickets. THEy also alleged that some money was realised from them by the T.T.C. as penalty for travelling without valid tickets for which no receipt was granted by him. We are not dealing with the story of the complainants as to how the arrangements were made in order to reach Bhubaneswar by a different train and the humiliation caused to them because of the forcible rude behaviour of the T.T.C. THEy have however claimed compensation of Rs. 5,00,464/- in this case.
2. THE Railway Administration through officials, namely. Chief Commercial Manager, 14, Strand Road, Calcutta-1, General Manager, South Eastern Railways, 11, Garden Reach Road, Calcutta-43 and General Manager, Southern Railways Madras Central have filed a show cause denying their liability. THEy have alleged that the complainants are not consumers and this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this case as according to them the incidents by which the complainants were aggrieved occurred beyond the jurisdiction of this Commission. THEy have also alleged that the story of the complainants that they were issued reserved tickets and they had occupied berth Nos. 4 & 6 of the Coach bearing No. S-11 is improper as no such information even given at the reservation counter. THEy have however admitted in paragraph-13 of their show cause that the reservations for second class berths in Coach S-11 of the Coromondal Express, leaving Madras for Howarh on 30.9.1993 was confirmed and in the manner alleged in para 6 of the complaint petition. It has been further admitted in para 16 of the show cause that an account of an unfortunate mistake of the operator at the Mother Computer, i.e. at Terminal No. 921 at Howrah on 20.9.1993 at 18.33 hours in second class was enteree as from Bhubaneswar to Howrah which passenger detail was available from the computerised Reservation System the Madras Central and reflected in the reservation chart in Annexure-2. It has been further stated in the said paragraph that the mistake has been regretted the operator concerned since it was an inadvertent mistake and the said operator has been punished sufficiently with stoppage of one increment for the same after due enquiry made by the Railway Administration. A copy of the reservation chart has been filed by the complainant which shows that the complainants were allotted berth Nos. 4 &6 in Coromondal Express starting from Madras Central Station to Howrah, but the starting point in the said reserva tion chart has been erroneously shown as Bhubaneswar and the destination being Howrah instead from Madras to Bhubaneswar. In the said reservation chart the correct ticket number which the complainants were holding has been correctly noted. It is therefore clear that due to the mistake committed by the Railway Authorities and the high-handedness of the officers, the complainants had to suffer loss and humiliation in presence of other passengers. As it appears from the show cause itself that the Railway Administration detected the mistake and has punished the concerned clerk by stopping one of his increment. This in our opinion has no redressal so far as the complaint is concerned. It may be said that the Railway Administration became double benefit by allowing passengers to travel in the said berth which stood reserved for the complainants and earned money for the same as well as got the benefit of stopping one increment of its employee. At any rate there is no scope for an argument that there was no deficiency on the part of the Railway Administration in the matter of giving due service to bona fide passengers who were entitled to travel in a particular train in the reserved berths.
The plea of the complainants that some money was taken away from them by T.T.C. is based on no evidence, but the inconvenience and harassment caused to them is apparent on the face of the circumstances mentioned above.
The points taken as to the maintainability of this case on the ground that the complainants are not consumers or on the plea that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this case are misconceived. It has been held in a large number of cases that Railway passenger paying money for the travel is a consumer as defined in the Act as he avails the services of the Railway Administration for consideration paid by them. As to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Commission, the opposite parties claimed that the incident took place beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission is not acceptable. The place of filing a complaint is having regard to the place where the cause of action or a part thereof arises. The complainants'' journey were from Madras to Bhubaneswar. A bundle of facts constitute the cause of action and not a single of fact. During the journey from Madras to Bhubaneswar if there is any deficiency in service, various Forums/ Commissions lying in between including Madras and that of Orissa State Commission has jurisdiction to deal with the same. The other technical grounds taken in the show cause that the complaint petition is not maintainable without impleading Railway Administration as such as a party is equally misconceived. Being a dispute cognizable under the Consumer Protection Act, these technicalities are not entertainable when the three high officials of the Railway Administration have been impleaded it should not have been construed that their impletion was in their personal capacity. In fact they were impleaded to represent the Railway Administration and the show cause submitted in this case must be deemed to be a show cause filed by the Railway Administration and not by the opposite parties in their personal capacities.
3. HAVING given our anxious consideration to the dispute, quantum of compensation to be paid to the complainants, we take a liberal view and award of compensation of Rs. 2,000/- to the two complainants equally which is on a lower side. We do so expecting that the Railway Administration will be careful in future. The aforesaid compensation shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of default till the date of payment. Mrs. Mrinalini Padhi, Member-I agree. Complaint disposed of.
