INDIAN NORTHERN WESTERN RAILWAY Vs. RAJMAL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals have been filed against the judgment of learned DCF Jaipur 3rd dated 17.9.2014 by which the complaint was allowed.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the railways has argued that under RAC the passengers are not entitled to full berth as these reservations are against spot cancellations. However, two passengers of RAC are accommodated on one seat. The complainants were given sitting seats as no berth had fallen vacant due to cancellations. They further argued that in the absence of record it cannot be adversely assumed against the railways that berths were available as the relevant record I.

(3.) On the other hand the learned Counsel for the complainant has argued that they had repeatedly contacted the TTE for allotment of seats as seats were fallen vacant and were being allotted to some other passengers in lieu of convenience fees. Thus, TTE was guilty of misconduct. We have heard the arguments advanced by both the Counsels. We have to see whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the railways in not providing berths to the passengers under RAC. As a matter of fact, we feel that the RAC passengers have no right to berth unless there are spot cancellations. Admittedly the complainants had no confirm tickets. The learned DCF has only relied on the affidavits of the complainants with regard to the fact that they were not provided the required information under RTI Act and the learned DCF has taken adverse inference and has allowed the complaint. We feel that not providing information under the RTI Act has a different cause of action for the complainant which has a penal provision also and there is an appellate authority under the RTI Act also. To prove the deficiency in service the complainants must prove that the berths were available and there were not provided to them. We agree with the contention of the complainants that this was entirely with the knowledge of the railways and necessary record was in possession of the railways but to prove deficiency it must come on record that despite the complainants were entitled to get confirm tickets they were made to travel under RAC. The complainants has also not made certain facts clear in the complaint. There are six complainants and their RAC waiting number has not been disclosed in the complaint and it is possible that there were other RAC passengers over them. Secondly this cannot be definitely ascertained whether any spot cancellations were made and against which the complainants had a right to get a confirm berth. It is also not on record that how many spot cancellations took place on that day in this train. There are both possibilities, there may or may not have any spot cancellations. The question of service deficiency can only be established in case one it is established that there were cancellations and complainants were entitled for the berth. We cannot proceed only on the assumption that there might have cancellations and RAC passengers should have been allotted berths. The learned DCF has proceeded on the assumption that TTE misbehaved and was misusing his position, against which a separate complaint against the TTE for misconduct and misbehavior should be lodged with the department and we cannot also presume that the TTE allotted vacant seats after taking the convenience fees from the passengers. The complainants were not able to state that in their compartment how many seats fell vacant from which station. The RAC list is prepared for the whole train and what was their position in the RAC list is not disclosed.