Barmer District Consumer Commission Directs South Eastern Railway To Compensate Passenger For Deficiency In Service Over Paid Bedroll Denial
The Barmer District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, comprising Shri Chandanaram Chaudhary (President) and Smt. Sarita Parik (Member), held the authorities of South Eastern Railway liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for failing to provide a paid bedroll to a passenger. Brief Facts of the Case: The complainant, Mohammad Shadab Alam, then posted...
The Barmer District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, comprising Shri Chandanaram Chaudhary (President) and Smt. Sarita Parik (Member), held the authorities of South Eastern Railway liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for failing to provide a paid bedroll to a passenger.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The complainant, Mohammad Shadab Alam, then posted at Air Force Station Uttarlai, Barmer (Rajasthan), booked a ticket for Train No. 22213 – Shalimar–Patna Duronto Express on 3 February 2020 through the IRCTC Android app, paying ₹567.70, including ₹25 for the bedroll facility. Around 10:30 p.m., he noticed that the coach attendant was distributing bedrolls to other passengers but ignored him, despite his ticket showing “Bedroll: Yes.” The attendant refused, citing lack of information, and the TTE also denied him the bedroll as well as access to the complaint register.
The complainant lodged complaints through Rail Madad, at Patna Junction, and to various authorities but received no redress. He later filed RTI applications, and in response, the Kharagpur Division, South Eastern Railway, by letter dated 8 April 2021, acknowledged the lapse and confirmed that departmental disciplinary action had been initiated and taken against the concerned TTE for the incident.
Due to being denied the paid bedroll, the complainant had to spend the night in severe cold, fell ill, and suffered physical, mental, and financial hardship. He filed a consumer complaint seeking compensation.
Arguments of the Complainant:
He contended that denial of a paid bedroll despite payment and ticket endorsement amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Arguments of the Railway Authorities (Opposite Parties 1 to 3):
They argued that the passenger chart did not show any bedroll allotment for the complainant and that the staff acted according to procedure.
Arguments of IRCTC:
IRCTC contended that it only provides an online ticket booking platform and is not responsible for onboard services; hence, no deficiency can be attributed to it.
Observations and Decision of the Commission:
The Commission held that there existed a consumer–service provider relationship between the complainant and South Eastern Railway. It found that despite payment, the complainant was denied the bedroll, and the Railway's own records showed that departmental action had been taken against the erring TTE. Thus, there was a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the Railway authorities.
The complaint against IRCTC was dismissed as no negligence was attributed to it.
Directions:
The Commission directed Opposite Parties No. 1 to 3 (South Eastern Railway authorities) to:
- Pay ₹567 (ticket amount) with 9% annual interest from 26.10.2021 till payment;
- Pay ₹35,000 as compensation for mental and physical suffering;
- Pay ₹10,000 towards litigation costs;
- In case of non-payment within one month, all amounts shall carry 9% annual interest from the date of the order.
Case Title: Mohammad Shadab Alam v. South Eastern Railway & Ors.
Case No.: 203/2021