Benefit Of Doubt Must Go In Favour Of Passenger In Case Of Ambiguity In Railway Guidelines: NCDRC

The complainant alleged that he was physically assaulted by railway personnel despite holding a valid ticket while traveling to New Delhi. He claimed that the Railway Protection Force (RPF) forcibly removed him from the train, tied him to a tree at Mughalsarai Station, detained him overnight in a lock-up, and released him on bail the next day. As a result, he sought a refund of Rs. 3,400 for the ticket, along with interest and other relief. The railway authorities, however, stated that under the Tatkal Scheme, passengers had to present the original ID proof listed on the ticket during the journey. Failure to do so resulted in all passengers being considered ticketless and charged accordingly. Since Mrs. M. Duta, the complainant's wife, whose ID was on the ticket, did not travel, the Ticket Examiner (TTE) questioned the complainant about the unauthorized pulling of the alarm chain near Rafigunj Station. When the complainant could not provide a valid reason, he was subjected to the RPF and prosecuted as per the law. Subsequently, the complainant filed a complaint with the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the Railways to refund the ticket amount and compensation for mental agony. The Railways contested the order in the State Commission, but the petition was allowed. The complainant has filed this Revision Petition against the State Commission's order.

The Railways contended that there was no deficiency in their actions. They argued that the complainant had booked two tickets under the Tatkal Scheme for himself and his wife but provided only his wife's identity details. According to railway regulations, at least one passenger listed on the ticket must present valid identification to the Ticket Examiner (TTE). Failure to do so results in all passengers being considered traveling without a valid ticket. When the TTE inspected the ticket, the complainant presented an invalid identity, imposing a penalty. The complainant refused to pay the penalty, engaged in a dispute with the TTE, and activated the emergency chain, leading to the involvement of the Train Manager and, subsequently, the Railway Protection Force (RPF).

The Commission observed that The commission thoroughly reviewed the State Commission's order, relevant documents, and arguments from both parties. The railway authorities contested that Circular No. 61 of 2011 didn't apply to the dispute, maintaining that at least one passenger must present valid identification to the Ticket Examiner (TTE), with failure resulting in all passengers being treated as traveling without a valid ticket. However, Circular No. 59 of 2011 for Tatkal tickets didn't mandate identity proof for all passengers, and the complainant claimed that the booking clerk informed him of this exemption. The commission found the conditions of Circular No. 59 harsh, as it could unfairly affect passengers due to last-minute changes in travel plans. Despite some ambiguity in Circular No. 61 regarding partial cancellations, the commission supported the District Forum's reliance on it. This decision aligns with the principles outlined in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors (2023), which emphasizes a constructive approach to interpreting consumer protection laws to achieve their intended purpose.

Consequently, the commission set aside the State Commission's order, upheld the District Forum's decision with adjustments to compensation and ordered the railways to refund the ticket cost and pay Rs. 25,000 in compensation for deficiency in service and mental anguish, with interest.

Case Title: Asish Kumar Paul Vs. General Manager, Eastern Railways

Case Number: R.P. No. 1425/2015