Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The appellants filed written statement before the District Commission, wherein it was pleaded that the consumer complaint is barred by Section 13 and 15 of The Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The District Commission has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the consumer complaint. The wife of the complainant did not reach the reserved berth by the time, the train left the originating station, i.e., Delhi, hence the T.T.E. (Travelling Ticket Examiner) waited for the passengers till the next stopping station, i.e., Ghaziabad, but since the complainant's wife did not reach to the reserved berth till Ghaziabad Station, hence the T.T.E. made an endorsement of NTU (Non turned up) and the berths were allotted to next waiting list passengers having RAC (Reservation against cancellation) ticket, namely, Sh. Hariom Gupta; Sh. Mahesh Gupta and Sh. Nischal Gupta and by doing so, no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice was resorted. The complainant's wife reached to her reserved berth about 100 kms. away from Delhi at Gajraula Junction and started shouting. The T.T.E. tried to explain the things to her, but she did not care to listen. However, the T.T.E. requested the passengers having RAC ticket, to whom the berths were allotted in place of the complainant's wife and children, who accepted the request of the T.T.E. and returned the berths allotted to them and the complainant's wife and children undertook journey from Gajraula Junction to Haridwar (their destination place) by sitting on the said berths. The complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer, as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. No such act has been committed by the appellants, which falls under the category of "deficiency in service".

4. After giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, the consumer complaint has been decided by learned District Commission vide impugned judgment and order dated 13.11.2020, thereby allowing the consumer complaint in the above terms. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal.

5. We have heard rival arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants and respondent present in person and perused the record.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that since the complainant's wife along with children did not reach her reserved berth at the boarding / originating station, when the train started moving towards destination place and reached the same after the train had undertaken journey of about 100 kms., there was nothing wrong on the part of T.T.E. in allotting the said berths to the passengers having RAC ticket. In support of his submission, learned counsel drew our attention to the Circular dated 05.03.2014 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Railways (Railway Board), which is Paper No. 55 on the record of appeal. Relevant portion of the said Circular reads as under: