The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, recently ruled against the Eastern Railways for failing to provide adequate service. The case revolved around a passenger who was treated as ticketless due to the railway’s ambiguous guidelines.
The passenger, Asish Kumar Paul, claimed that he was unfairly treated by railway personnel while traveling to New Delhi, even though he had a valid ticket. According to him, the Railway Protection Force (RPF) forcibly removed him from the train at Mughalsarai Station, tied him to a tree, detained him overnight, and only released him the next day on bail. As a result, Paul sought a refund of Rs. 3,400 for the ticket, plus interest and other compensation.
The railway authorities disagreed, arguing that under the Tatkal Scheme, passengers are required to present original ID proof listed on the ticket during travel. Failure to do this results in passengers being deemed ticketless and charged accordingly. As Paul’s wife, whose ID was on the ticket, did not travel, the authorities questioned him about unauthorized pulling of the train’s alarm chain. Unable to provide a valid reason, Paul was handed over to the RPF and prosecuted.
This series of events led Paul to bring his complaint to the District Forum, which sided with him and ordered the Railways to refund his ticket and compensate him for mental distress. The Railways appealed this decision at the State Commission but lost. Paul then filed a Revision Petition against the State Commission’s order.
The Railways maintained that they had done nothing wrong. They stated that Paul had booked two tickets under the Tatkal Scheme but only provided his wife’s identity details. As per railway rules, at least one passenger on the ticket must show valid identification. With Paul unable to do so, he was considered to be traveling without a valid ticket, and a penalty was imposed.
Upon reviewing the case, the Commission noted that the railway’s rules were not entirely clear. While Circular No. 59 of 2011 for Tatkal tickets did not require all passengers to present identity proof, Paul claimed that he was informed of this exemption by the booking clerk. The Commission found this rule to be harsh, as it could unfairly impact passengers due to last-minute changes in travel plans.
Ultimately, the Commission favored the District Forum’s decision, which was based on Circular No. 61. This ruling is in line with the principles outlined in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors (2023), which emphasizes a constructive approach to interpreting consumer protection laws to achieve their intended purpose.
In conclusion, the Commission overruled the State Commission’s order, upheld the District Forum’s decision with compensation adjustments, and ordered the Railways to refund the ticket cost and pay Rs. 25,000 in compensation for deficient service and mental anguish, plus interest.
The case is titled Asish Kumar Paul Vs. General Manager, Eastern Railways, with the case number R.P. No. 1425/2015.
The main takeaway from this judgment is that consumers have the right to clear and fair rules when purchasing services. Any ambiguity in these rules can lead to mishandling and have severe consequences, as seen in this case. Therefore, service providers must strive to provide clear guidelines and ensure a seamless experience for their customers.
