Mumbai: A district consumer commission has directed the railways to compensate a senior citizen Rs 35,000 for mental agony suffered owing to non-functioning of AC in Duronto Express. He will also be paid Rs 15,000 towards litigation costs.
Shivshankar Ramshringar Shukla, an advocate residing in the Fort area, had filed a complaint against the Union of India through the Ministry of Railways, General Manager of the Central Railway, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus and the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd (IRCTC) after he had to travel in a train where the AC was non-functional.
Order was passed on Aug 8, released on Nov 4
The order passed by South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission president Sneha S Mhatre and member DS Paradkar ordered the compensation in their August 8 order this year, which was uploaded only on November 4.
Mr Shukla had booked a return First AC ticket in Duronto from Mumbai to Allahabad in 2017. While returning on June 3, 2017, the AC system wasn’t functioning at the departure time. As May and June are peak summer months, temperatures are over 42 degrees during daytime and the night temperature hovers around 33-34 degrees in UP (Allahabad).
When the situation was brought to the notice of the ticket conductor and the technician, they assured that the temperature would come down to 25 degrees within two hours. Later, passengers were informed that gas in the AC system had leaked. On consistent complaint, the train made a non-scheduled halt at Jabalpur but moved on as no technician or support was available. Agitated passengers pulled the chain and stopped the train at Itarsi Junction, another non-scheduled stop. However, there was no relief and the journey of 20 hours continued with soaring temperatures in the closed train compartment with no other source of flow of air.
TC had issued certificate recording non-functioning of the AC
Co-passengers even tweeted the issue but to no result. When the ticket conductor issued a certificate recording non-functioning of the AC to make the journey free, there was no refund given until filing of the complaint. In fact, a refund was declined despite complaints to the Prime Minister’s Office and the railway minister.
The railways countered the argument by stating that the difference between fares of First AC and Third AC was made and the issue about ‘refund of fare’ needs to be dealt with by the Railway Claims Tribunal and the commission has no jurisdiction.
The railways argued that chain pulling was illegal as it is meant for ‘emergency’ and not for comfort and to get the AC repaired. It also said that TDR (ticket deposit receipt) was not filed within stipulated 20 hours and instead letters were written. Earlier same Forum had rejected the complaint saying error beyond human control. When an appeal was filed in the State Commission, it referred the matter back to the district forum.
The second time, the district forum observed that the railways is responsible for keeping all equipment in proper working condition during the journey, and that refunding the amount does show acceptance of fault. It upheld the contention of complainants that they suffered mental and physical trauma and that there was deficiency in service.
