IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DI SPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2172 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 23.04.2018 in First Appeal No. 1240/2017 of the State Commission, Rajasthan)

North Western Railways Through Divisional Rail Manager, Near Jawahar Circle, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur .... Petitioner Versus Yogesh Gahlot, Son of Sh. Rameshwar Gehlot, Resident of Plot No. A-6, Road No. 4, Jamna Nagar, Sodhala, Jaipur Respondent BEFORE:

HON'BLE AVM JONNALAGADDA RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (Retd)

PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Verma, Advocate For the Respondent : NEMO Dated : 09.01.2026

ORDER (ORAL)

1. None appears for the Respondent.

2. Vide order dated 17.10.2019, the Respondent was considered served since counsel for the Petitioner confirmed payment of Rs.5,000 to the Complainant/ Respondent, which has been received. In addition, in the interest of justice, Respondent was served by Dasti, the report of which was filed by the Petitioner on 24.11.2025. However, none appeared for the Respondent in any later proceedings, including 13.10.2025, 07.01.2026 as well as today. Respondent is placed ex-parte.

3. The matter pertains to allegation of deficiency in service against the OP/Petitioner with respect to providing of a railway bogie for travel by 40 passengers as sought and paid for by the Complainant. It is a matter of record that on 07.11.2009, the Complainant booked tickets for 40 passengers through IRCTC online for their journey from Jaipur to Jodhpur for travel on 08.11.2009. The tickets were undisputedly confirmed and coach D-l was allotted to them. The Complainant paid Rs.3,533.99 as the total consideration for all 40 tickets. However, for the travel on 08.11.2009, the OP did not attach the reservation coach as sought and paid for and they were inconvenienced in their travel as they had to travel standing in crowded coach.

4. On being issued notice, the OP contended that there is no consumer-service provider relationship between the OP and the Complainant since the Complainant had booked the tickets through IRCTC online which is an independent agency. On merits it was argued that a coach was provided by marking as D-l and that it was a general coach. Since a separate coach was attached, there is no cause of action.

5. The District Forum vide Order dated 13.09.2017 directed:

"ORDER Hence, the of the complaint complainant is allowed and the Opposite Parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.3533.99/- round off Rs.3534/-jointly and severally from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. dated 11.04.2011 till the actual realization with interest @ 9% per annum within two months.

Also pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.40,000/- as Rs.l,000/-per passenger (40 passengers) against the mental harassment and physical pain caused to the passengers alongwith a sum of Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses within two months from today.

Failure to comply this order, the Opposite Party would be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum jointly and severally from the date of order till actual realization. Rest of the prayers of the Complainant is disallowed."

6. As against which, the OP had filed an Appeal, and the State Commission vide order dated 23.04.2018 dismissed the same. As against which, the present Revision Petition No. 2712 of 2018 has been filed.

7. Heard Learned Counsel for petitioner in detail who asserted that there is no consumer-service provider relationship between the OP and the Complainant since he booked the tickets through IRCTC online which is an independent agency. Further, a coach was provided by OP marking as D-l and that it was a general coach. Since a separate coach as sought was attached, there is no cause of action.

8. It is undisputed that the Complainant booked for travel of 40 passengers and confirmed tickets were issued and he sought a separate bogie for their travel from Jaipur to Jodhpur on 07.11.2009. It is also not in dispute that as against al