Barmer Consumer Commission Orders South Eastern Railway To Pay ₹35,000 Compensation For Denying Paid Bedroll To Passenger
Pranav B Prem
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Barmer (Rajasthan), comprising Shri Chandanaram Chaudhary (President) and Smt. Sarita Parik (Member), held the South Eastern Railway authorities liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for failing to provide a paid bedroll to a passenger, despite payment and confirmed booking.
Background
The complainant, Mohammad Shadab Alam, then serving at Air Force Station Uttarlai, Barmer, booked a ticket for Train No. 22213 – Shalimar–Patna Duronto Express on February 3, 2020, through the IRCTC Android app. The total fare was ₹567.70, which included ₹25 towards the bedroll facility. Around 10:30 p.m., the complainant noticed the coach attendant distributing bedrolls to other passengers but ignoring him, despite his ticket clearly mentioning “Bedroll: Yes.” When questioned, the attendant stated that there was no information regarding his bedroll and refused to provide one. The complainant then approached the Travelling Ticket Examiner (TTE), who also declined to help and denied him access to the complaint register.
Having been denied the service he paid for, the complainant lodged grievances through the Rail Madad portal and later at Patna Junction but received no effective response. He subsequently filed RTI applications, and the South Eastern Railway, Kharagpur Division, in its letter dated April 8, 2021, admitted the lapse and confirmed that disciplinary action had been initiated and taken against the erring TTE. Claiming that he was forced to travel the night in severe cold and subsequently fell ill, suffering physical and mental distress, the complainant filed a consumer complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, seeking refund and compensation.
Complainant’s Submissions
The complainant argued that the denial of a paid bedroll despite payment and ticket endorsement amounted to a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under Sections 2(11) and 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. He submitted that the railway’s failure caused him inconvenience, humiliation, and health issues, entitling him to appropriate compensation.
Railway Authorities’ Response
The South Eastern Railway contended that there was no record of any bedroll allotment for the complainant in the passenger chart and that the coach staff acted as per standard procedure. It further argued that the incident did not amount to deficiency in service since the complainant had reached his destination without any disruption in travel. The IRCTC, meanwhile, maintained that it only served as an online ticket booking platform and was not responsible for the provision of onboard facilities like bedrolls. Hence, no liability could be imposed upon it for the alleged deficiency.
Findings and Observations
After considering the evidence, the Commission held that there existed a consumer–service provider relationship between the complainant and the South Eastern Railway. The Commission observed that the complainant’s ticket and payment details clearly proved he had opted and paid for the bedroll service. Significantly, the Commission took note of the railway’s own communication acknowledging the lapse and confirming disciplinary action against the TTE, which clearly established deficiency in service.
The Commission stated that failure to provide the bedroll, coupled with denial of access to the complaint register, amounted to unfair trade practice and a violation of the passenger’s statutory consumer rights. At the same time, the Commission found no deficiency in service on the part of IRCTC, as it merely facilitated ticket booking and was not responsible for onboard service delivery.
Order and Directions
Holding the South Eastern Railway authorities liable, the Commission directed Opposite Parties Nos. 1 to 3 (Railway officials) to:
Refund ₹567 (ticket amount) with 9% interest per annum from 26.10.2021 till realization;
Pay ₹35,000 as compensation for mental agony and physical suffering;
Pay ₹10,000 as litigation costs;
The Commission further ordered that if the above amounts are not paid within one month, they shall carry 9% annual interest from the date of the order until full realization.
By holding the South Eastern Railway accountable, the Barmer District Consumer Commission reaffirmed that passengers are entitled to all services they pay for, and failure to provide such facilities constitutes a deficiency in service. The Commission also underscored that mere acknowledgment of a lapse without restitution is insufficient — consumers must be fairly compensated for the hardship caused by service failures.
Cause Title: Mohammad Shadab Alam v. South Eastern Railway & Ors.
Case No: CC 203/2021
Coram: Shri Chandanaram Chaudhary (President), Smt. Sarita Parik (Member)
