CONSUMER PROTECTION COUNCIL vs General Manager Southern Railways

THIS Consumer Complaint has been filed by the Consumer Protection Council Tamilnadu against the Southern Railway and the Railway Board. The Complainant is a registered voluntary organization working in the area of consumer welfare. In the proceeding before us Shri Pushpavanam has filed the supporting affidavit apparently, on behalf of the Complainant Consumer Protection Council, though it is not specifically stated in the affidavit.

THE Complaint is filed ?on behalf of innumerable unidentifiable passengers? seeking to represent them under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. THE Complaint shows that it is raised under Section 2(g) and 2(r) of the Act. In other words, it relates to alleged deficiency in nature and quality of service and unfair trade practice. The matter pertains to running of the Cholan Express (Train No. 6854) between Tiruchirappalli and Chennai. The service was reportedly withdrawn in 2004 and reintroduced in 2010. Besides unreserved coaches, the train has other coaches of the air condition/sleeper category. Along with the Complaint, photostats of Railway timetable as well as of tickets of actual journey have been produced in evidence of the claim that the Railway authorities have been charging the traveling passenger sleeper class fare though the train operates during the day hours only i.e. between 0820 and 1745 hours it casts unnecessary additional financial burden on the passenger. According to the Complainant, for the day journey by second class a passenger should be paying Rs.22/- only while he is made to pay between Rs.120/- to 184/- for traveling in the sleeper class.

The Complainant has enclosed a computation on the assumption of 50% occupancy and 220 days of operation between 26.04.2010 and 01.12.2010 to arrive at a figure of Rs.1,34,64,000/- as excess fare paid by the passenger. According to the Complainant this amounts to unjust enrichment to the extent of this amount by the Railways, for which jurisdiction of this Commission is invoked. It is prayed that direction be issued to the Railway authorities on the following lines:- a) To stop charging sleeper class fare. b) To deposit an amount of Rs.1,34,64,000/- in the consumer welfare fund of the Government of India. c) To pay a punitive damage of Rs.20 lakhs to the Consumer welfare fund and d) To pay the complainant Rs.75,000/- towards cost.?

THE Complainant has also enclosed copies of his correspondence with the Railway authorities on this subject. We find that on 28.08.2010 a reply has been sent on behalf of the Chief Commercial Manager, Southern Railway to the Complainant. Railway authorities have apparently considered the issue raised by the Complainant and have informed him that his request for conversion of sleeper to second class accommodation sitting in these two trains will be reviewed. We have heard the Complainant on the maintainability of the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. For the Complaint to be maintainable the Complainant has to be a Consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. This provision requires the matter to relate to purchase of goods or hiring/availment of any service for a consideration. Members of the traveling public are individually in the category of Consumers as they avail of the train services by paying the prescribed fare for it. The train ticket issued to the individual passenger is the evidence of this relationship between the Railways and the passenger.

WE have heard the Complainant on the maintainability of this Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. Section 2(1)(b) permits a voluntary consumer association registered under Companies Act, 1956 or under any other law to be a Complainant. However, the complaint itself should relate to one or more of the matters enumerated in Section 2(1)(c) of the Act. The case of the Complainant is that the action of the Railway authorities in the present matter amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in relation to the service provided by them i.e. operation of the Cholan Express. However, a question that will arise before any examination of the allegation of unfair trade practice or deficiency in service, is the question whether the Complainant has come to the appropriate forum. Under Section 21 of the Act, National Commission has jurisdiction to entertain Complaint where the value of goods or services and compensation, if any claimed, exceed Rs.1 crore. As already observed, this petition is filed on the assumption that the Railways have made an unjust enrichment of Rs.1.35 crore by operating the service. This computation is based on assumptions of occupancy of birth/seats and number of days of operations. In our view these assumptions are made only to bring the matter within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission, laid down in Section 21 of the Act. It is therefore, not possible to accept the outcome of such computation. Coming to the substance of the complaint, it needs to be noted that the matter has already been taken up by the Complainant with the appropriate authority, whose response has also been received by the Complainant. In their letter of 28.08.2010, the Deputy Chief Commercial Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai has informed the Complainant Consumer Protection Council that their request for conversion of sleeper class to second class sitting will be reviewed by the Railways. The issue, infact, pertains to policy matter in respect of which no consumer complaint can be entertained. In view of this, no cause of action is found to exist which can justify proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The Consumer Complaint is consequently dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs.