IMPORTANT POINT
Complainant must prove his case by adducing full evidence.

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member —This revision petition has been filed by the complainant, Rajmal Jain &Ors. against the order dated 14.05.2015 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (in short ‘the State Commission’).

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had travelled from Jaipur to Parasnath on 24.12.2010 by Train No.2308 A (Bikaner Howrah Superfast). The complainants were initially on waiting list number 9 to 14 later on their waiting tickets were converted to RAC. They were accommodated in coach No.B 2 and were allotted seats on berth no.47, 55 and 63. The complainant’s case is that on enquiry from the TTE they were assured that after Agra they will be allotted independent berths and till Agra they will have to travel on sitting basis. The complainants have filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service against the railways that till Parasnath the TTE had not allotted them berth though there were cancellations and vacant berths were allotted to some other passengers after taking convenience fees from them.

3. Finding deficiency in service, the complainants filed consumer complaint before the District Consumer Protection Forum, No.1 Jaipur, Mahanagar, (in short ‘the District Forum’), which passed following order on 17.09.2014:-

“In connection with the above journey the complainants are entitled to get from the Opposite party a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) in one lumpsum for the aforesaid mental tension, physical troubles and inconvenience. Towards litigation expenses the applicants are entitled to get 11,000/- (Eleven thousand) rupees from the Opposite party.

The Opposite parties will get the entire of the above amount in equal proportion.”

4. Aggrieved with the above order of the District Forum, the opposite party as well as the complainant preferred First Appeal No.971 of 2014 and First Appeal No.1016 of 2014 respectively before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 14.5.2015 allowed the appeal No.971 of 2014 filed by the opposite party and dismissed the appeal No.1016 of 2014 filed by the complainant.

5. Hence the revision petition by the complainants.

6. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the complainants are senior citizens and were travelling from Jaipur to Parasnath on 24.12.2010 and had RACT reservations. Train Ticket Examiner (TTE) had promised them to give independent berths from Agra, however, no independent berth was allotted to any of the complainants till the end of the journey. There were many berths still vacant due to cancellation and non-turning of the reserved passengers, but the vacant berths were allotted to other passengers and not to these RAC passengers who had the first right to these berths. Learned counsel also argued that no record was produced by the opposite party- Indian North Western Railway giving the position of cancellation of reservations or no show of passengers on the train on that date. Had the records been produced before the District Fora or the State Commission, the position would have been clear. The petitioners tried to obtain the same information under the Right to Information Act (RTI), but to no avail. The State Commission has erred in observing that the complainants did not produce any proof that there were vacant berths and they were allotted to other passengers instead of the complainants. The records are in the possession of the opposite party and the same were not supplied to the complainants inspite of their application under the RTI Act. The State Commission has not appreciated this fact, whereas the District Forum had rightly come to the conclusion that opposite parties were deficient in service.

8. The learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party stated that the complainants have not indicated in their complaint as to which berth numbers were allotted to other passengers out of turn. Th