Back
Consumer Commission Penalizes For Denying Separate Bedrolls To RAC Passengers During Train Travel
The , has ruled against in a case concerning regarding bedroll provisions for passengers. The bench, led by President Monika Aggarwal Srivastava and members Dr. Rajender Dhar and Ritu Garodia, held the railway authority accountable for failing to provide adequate bedding facilities to a passenger despite the collection of full fares.
The Journey and the Dispute
In , the complainant, Sanjay Kumar Mishra, booked a journey from Prayagraj to Delhi on the Humsafar Express. Upon boarding, he discovered he was sharing a single seat under an RAC ticket with another passenger, Kaushlesh Kumar. The dispute arose when the onboard staff provided only a single pillow and blanket for both passengers. Despite several requests to the train attendant and the TTE, Suresh Kumar Bind, the passengers were denied additional bedding. The complainant’s grievances remained largely unaddressed, leading him to file a formal complaint and eventually an RTI application.
Arguments of the Parties
The complainant argued that passengers travelling on RAC tickets pay fares comparable to confirmed ticket holders and should be entitled to individual bedding as per basic service requirements. He sought compensation of ₹20,00,000 for .
contested the claim, raising an objection regarding and asserting that the incident fell under the purview of . They further claimed that bedrolls are provided based on availability and demand, and noted that they had already imposed a penalty of ₹1,000 on the contractor for the service lapse, though this information was never relayed to the passenger.
Legal Analysis and Precedents
The Commission clarified that the journey’s termination in Delhi gave it the requisite to hear the matter. Crucially, the bench relied on a circular from the , which mandates that RAC passengers in AC classes are entitled to a blanket and bedsheet, as bedroll charges are included in their fare. The Commission observed that the Railways failed to provide proof that a separate bedroll was ever offered to the complainant, rendering their defense regarding "availability" insufficient.
Key Observations
-
"The Railways provided one blanket to two completely unrelated passengers in violation of circular dated ."
-
"Thereafter, the railways imposed a Rs.1,000/- penalty on the linen contractor, but failed to inform the complainant about the same or provide compensation to the passenger."
-
"Moreover, OP has not placed on record any proof that a separate bedroll was provided to the complainant."
-
"Hence, we find OP guilty of and direct OP to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for and physical inconveniences."
Final Order and Implications
The Commission ordered to pay the complainant ₹20,000 as compensation for mental and physical harassment, along with ₹5,000 toward litigation costs. The order mandates compliance within 60 days, failing which the amount will accrue interest at 7% per annum. This judgment serves as a stern reminder that public service providers cannot escape liability through internal contractual mechanisms when they fail to deliver essential services guaranteed to passengers.
