UNION OF INDIA Vs. HARJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the respondent, who was holding a wait-listed AC-II Tier Ticket (PNR No. 235-2543695) of 2424-Rajdhani Express from New Delhi to Lumding, boarded the Rajdhani Express on 28.09.2002. As per allegation, in the train when the respondent approached the TSI, Shri Ramesh Kumar, at the Delhi Railway Station and showed him the waitlisted ticket, he was told to pay Rs.500/- for allotment of seat which had fallen vacant due to cancellation of seat numbers 19 to 22. When the respondent declined to pay extra money, allegedly the TSI who was OP-4 before the District Forum, started harassing him telling that either he will have to get down from the train or to pay penalty of Rs.3350/- as full fare from New Delhi to Lumding. The TSI also flashed a message to RPF Allahabad to detrain the respondent. He, however, was allowed to travel despite being waitlisted passenger against a vacant seat by paying Rs.3350/- as penalty. The respondent lodged a complaint of the TSI on duty on the train and also made a complaint in the complaint book at Guwahati Railway Station on 29.09.2002. He also made a representation to the railway authorities but to no relief and finally his claim was rejected by the petitioners vide their Memo dated 24.10.2003. Aggrieved by this conduct of the petitioners, the respondent filed a consumer complaint requesting for refund of penalty amount imposed upon him alongwith interest and also to reimburse his air fare of Rs.78,110/- with interest incurred on his travel to attend to his complaint by coming from Golaghat, Assam as per the details furnished by him in his complaint. He also claimed compensation of Rs. 3 lakh.

(2.) The petitioners/OPs contested the complaint and contended that since the respondent / complainant was holding wait listed tickets, he was not authorised to travel either on Rajdhani or Shatabdi express train without permission of the authorised staff and being a defaulter he was penalised as per the rules and regulations as are applicable in the case of travel by Rajdhani and Shatabdi express trains. It was, however, admitted by the petitioners before the District Forum that four seats bearing numbers 19, 20, 21 & 22 had fallen vacant and respondent was the only waitlisted passenger to board the train. On hearing the parties and appraisal of the evidence placed before it, the District Forum allowed the complaint vide its order dated 26.10.2006 by directing the opposite parties to refund the penalty amount of Rs.3,350/- to the complainant / respondent besides paying him Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and cost within a period of one month.

(3.) Aggrieved of the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal against the same before the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redresssal Commission through appeal No. FA-07/93. The State Commission vide its impugned order dated 01.07.2010 upheld the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal with a cost of Rs. 5000/- for filing a frivolous appeal. It is against this order of the State Commission that the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners before the National Commission.