##PAGE1##

FA/150/2020 DOD: 27.02.2026

MINISTRY OF RAILWAY AND ANR. VS. SHRI SAROJ KUMAR SINGH

IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION

Date of Institution: 24.12.2020

Date of hearing: 09.01.2026

Date of Decision: 27.02.2026

FIRST APPEAL 150/2020

IN THE MATTER OF

1. MINISTRY OF RAILWAY,

THROUGH ITS SECRETARY,

RAIL BHAWAN,

NEW DELHI.

2. HEAD QUARTER,

NORTHERN RAILWAY,

BARODA HOUSE,

KASTURBA GANDHI MARG,

NEW DELHI-110001

(Through: Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma, Advocate)

Appellants

VERSUS

SHRI SAROJ KUMAR SINGH,

R/O, B-40/A,

ANAND VIHAR,

UTTAM NAGAR,

NEW DELHI-110059.

(Through: Mr. Anjani Kumar Singh, Advocate)

…Respondent

DISMISSED PAGE 1 OF 9

FA/150/2020 DOD: 27.02.2026

MINISTRY OF RAILWAY AND ANR. VS. SHRI SAROJ KUMAR SINGH

CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)

Present: Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma, Counsel for the Appellant.

Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, station superintendent, DRM

office.

Respondent in person

Mr. Anjani Kumar Singh, Counsel for the Respondent.

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,

PRESIDENT

JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:

“The complainant has filed the present complaint

against the OPs under section 12 of Consumer

Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts as alleged in the

complaint are that the complainant booked sleeper ticket

for Rs. 399/- for the journey scheduled on 31/10/2012

from Anand Vihar to Katihar Junction bearing PNR no.

214/0132355 in Simanchal Express. On 16/10/2012, the

booking status of sleeper availability was RAC/43. The

complainant was hope full that his booking would turn

confirmed in coming 16 days l.e. by 31/10/2012. On

31/10/2012, the complainant reached at 6:30am at

Anand Vihar Railway Station to board the train. After

going through the chart prepared, he found that his

ticket was waiting 44 instead of confirmed or RAC/43.

He immediately complaint about the same to the railway

staff and also requested TTE to help him, who instead

helping him, informed that some coaches have been

removed from the train that is why the status of RAC/43

become waiting. but refuse to give anything in writing,

having no other option he had to travel in the train in

standing position. The complainant sent a legal notice

through his advocate demanding the compensation

against the deficiency in services by OPs. The OPs vide

its letter dated 15/02/2013 informed the complainant

DISMISSED PAGE 2 OF 9

FA/150/2020 DOD: 27.02.2026

MINISTRY OF RAILWAY AND ANR. VS. SHRI SAROJ KUMAR SINGH

that one coach SE-1 was removed by the Operating

branch due to which RAC/43 become waiting but does

not spell a single word about compensation. It is further

stated by the complainant that due to deficiency in

services on the part of the OPs, he was compel to travel

in a standing position from Anand Vihar to Katihar

Junction for which he is entitled for compensation, hence

this complaint.

Complaint has been contested by OPs. OPs filed its

written statement in which it denied any deficiency in

services. It is stated that the complainant does not falls

within the definition of consumer under the C.P. Act.

OPs has also raised the objection regarding the

jurisdiction of this Forum on the ground that only

Railway Claim Tribunal has the jurisdiction to entertain

and adjudicate the present complaint and prayed for the

dismissal of the complaint. It is further stated that due

technical fault in wheel gazing, one coach was not

attached in train, even there was no extra coach

available at that station, hence berth was not confirmed.

The railway administration can take the decision to

detach the coach from the train in larger interest and

smooth Operation of train as per Indian Railway

Conference Association coaching tariff no. 2. Moreover,

the complainant itself admitted in his complaint that

having no other option he boarded the train, otherwise,

option of taking full refund was available to him, being

waiting list passenger he should not have boarded the

train. The complainant has already completed his