ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. RAMESH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision, challenge is to the order dated 9.9.2005 of A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad dismissing appeal against the order dated 17.9.2004 of a District Forum whereby complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) Petitioner alleged that he purchased a ticket with confirmed berth No. 72 for himself and RAC/1 for his wife from Sullurupeta to Secunderabad by Charminar Express on 30.11.2002. Petitioner boarded the train at Sullurupeta at 7.20 p.m. On reserved berth No. 72 one gentleman was sitting. On being asked by the petitioner to vacate the berth that gentleman refused to vacate it saying that he had got reservation in RAC quota. Petitioner thereafter approached the T.T.I. and informed him of the unauthorised occupation of the berth. T.T.I. later on informed that RAC/I has been allotted berth No. 14 in S-1 coach. Alleging deficiency in service, the petitioner filed complaint which was contested by filing written version by the respondent. It was alleged that berth No. 72 in S-9 coach was confirmed in the name of petitioner while name of his wife was shown against RAC/1 and subsequently RAC/1 was confirmed and was allotted berth No. 14 in S-1 coach. Berth No. 72 in S-9 coach was a side upper berth. It was further alleged that railway journey ticket of the petitioner was a computer generated ticket and issued through Passenger Reservation System (PRS) of the South-Central Railways which has an integrated network connecting all zonal railways. As per the system the final status of RAC and wait-listed passengers is known only at the time of preparation of reservation chart which is done just few hours before starting of train. Railways offers sleeping accommodation only between 9.00 p.m. and 6.00 a.m. Petitioner was under the impression that berth No. 72 was a side lower berth. Side lower berth No. 71 was held by two RAC passengers as given in the chart. Two bona fide RAC passengers were travelling in berth No. 71 in S-9 coach as per the chart. Petitioner s wife slept on berth No. 72 in S-9 coach while the petitioner slept on berth No. 14 in S-1 coach. Thus, no inconvenience was caused to the complainant and his wife with regard to sleeping accommodation provided by the Railways. There was no deficiency in service on part of respondent Railways.

(3.) Main thrust of argument advanced by the petitioner was that he being a senior citizen and handicapped person should not have been allotted upper berth; his wife too should have been allotted berth in S-9 instead of S-1 coach and petitioner was not permitted to sit on side lower berth by two unauthorised persons sitting there and T.T.I. did not take any step to get that berth vacated. Order passed by the District Forum based on appreciation of evidence which was affirmed in appeal, notices that the allegation made in the complaint that T.T.I. did not take any steps to get berth No. 71 vacated was not proved; petitioner was under wrong impression that he was having reservation of lower berth as berth No. 72 allotted to him was a side upper berth as indicated in the ticket - Exhibit A-1 itself. It was not disputed that the railway journey ticket, in question, was computer generated ticket issued through PRS of South-Central Railway. Therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to have made grievance that he should not have been allotted upper berth and his wife accommodated in same coach S-9. None of the submissions advanced by the petitioner has any merit. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by Fora below warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of C.P. Act. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed.