Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

K.S. Gupta, J. (Presiding Member)

1. In this revision, challenge is to the order dated 9.9.2005 of A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad dismissing appeal against the order dated 17.9.2004 of a District Forum whereby complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. Petitioner alleged that he purchased a ticket with confirmed berth No. 72 for himself and RAC/1 for his wife from Sullurupeta to Secunderabad by Charminar Express on 30.11.2002. Petitioner boarded the train at Sullurupeta at 7.20 p.m. On reserved berth No. 72 one gentleman was sitting. On being asked by the petitioner to vacate the berth that gentleman refused to vacate it saying that he had got reservation in RAC quota. Petitioner thereafter approached the T.T.I. and informed him of the unauthorised occupation of the berth. T.T.I. later on informed that RAC/I has been allotted berth No. 14 in S-1 coach. Alleging deficiency in service, the petitioner filed complaint which was contested by filing written version by the respondent. It was alleged that berth No. 72 in S-9 coach was confirmed in the name of petitioner while name of his wife was shown against RAC/1 and subsequently RAC/ 1 was confirmed and was allotted berth No. 14 in S-1 coach. Berth No. 72 in S-9 coach was a side upper berth. It was further alleged that railway journey ticket of the petitioner was a computer generated ticket and issued through Passenger Reservation System (PRS) of the South-Central Railways which has an integrated network connecting all zonal railways. As per the system the final status of RAC and waitlisted passengers is known only at the time of preparation of reservation chart which is done just few hours before starting of train. Railways offers sleeping accommodation only between 9.00 p.m. and 6.00 a.m. Petitioner was under the impression that berth No. 72 was a side lower berth. Side lower berth No. 71 was held by two RAC passengers as given in the chart. Two bona fide RAC passengers were travelling in berth No. 71 in S-9 coach as per the chart. Petitioner's wife slept on berth No. 72 in S-9 coach while the petitioner slept on berth No. 14 in S-1 coach. Thus, no inconvenience was caused to the complainant and his wife with regard to sleeping accommodation provided by the Railways. There was no deficiency in service on part of respondent Railways.