Family wins Rs 75,000 claim after train berth was taken over by crowd | Personal Finance

 

A confirmed railway reservation gives a passenger the right to use the berth for which they have paid. A recent consumer commission ruling has reinforced this principle after a family travelling to Tirupati found their reserved berths occupied by unreserved, waitlisted and ticketless passengers.

 

The Palakkad District Consumer Commission, in its order in Parthasarathi T. vs Ministry of Indian Railways & others, directed the Railways to pay the family Rs 50,000 as compensation and Rs 25,000 towards litigation costs.

 

The case is relevant for railway passengers because it also shows what consumers can do when a confirmed reservation is not properly honoured and why documenting the problem can become crucial if a dispute later reaches a consumer commission.

 
 

 

Parthasarathi T, his wife Nirmala K T and their son Aditya T P had confirmed sleeper-class reservations on the Kanyakumari-Pune Express on December 10, 2023.

 

The parents had lower berths in S2, while their son had an upper berth in S6. However, the family alleged that both coaches became overcrowded, with unreserved, waitlisted and ticketless passengers occupying reserved spaces and even sitting or sleeping on the floor.

 

The parents, who were senior citizens, eventually managed to use their lower berths after repeatedly asking other passengers to move. Aditya also had to repeatedly ask passengers to vacate his reserved upper berth.

 

The overcrowding also made it difficult to move through the coach and access the washroom.

 

The family complained through the RailMadad app at 8.12 pm. A second complaint was filed later, alleging that S6 was packed with unreserved passengers and that the ticket examiner had not checked the coach.

 

The Railways said its staff had attended the complaints and removed unauthorised passengers at different stations. However, the commission noted that the Railways did not produce evidence, including testimony from the concerned railway staff, to establish that the passengers had actually been removed as claimed.

 

The family also produced photographs showing the condition of the coaches. These, along with the RailMadad complaints, became important evidence.

 

 

The commission concluded that the family had not received the safe and reasonably comfortable service that could be expected from a confirmed reservation.

 

Mathuvanthy Mathavan, partner, Poovayya & Co., said the decision reinforces the principle that consumers are entitled to receive the service they have paid for. “A confirmed reservation carries with it a legitimate expectation of a safe and reasonably comfortable journey,” she said, adding that consumer law can provide accountability where a service provider fails to address a situation that substantially deprives a consumer of the promised service.

 

B. Shravanth Shanker, managing partner, B. Shanker Advocates LLP, said a reserved berth creates a “legitimate expectation of a safe and comfortable journey”. According to him, issuing a ticket alone does not absolve the Railways of responsibility if unauthorised occupation is not effectively addressed.

 

Sanya Gangar, associate, PSL Advocates & Solicitors, said the ruling is significant because the family had produced RailMadad complaints and photographs. She said the decision highlights that the Railways must take effective steps to ensure reserved coaches remain accessible to authorised passengers and that complaints are acted upon promptly.

 

 

The commission’s reasoning rests on the consumer law concept of “deficiency in service”. Samayra Adlakha, advocate, Delhi High Court, said a confirmed reservation amounts to a contractual undertaking to provide usable and exclusive access to the reserved berth.

 

She said that where a passenger cannot use the accommodation for which they have paid, it can meet the statutory threshold of deficiency under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Adlakha also pointed out that the commission considered the hardship faced by senior citizens while assessing compensation. The inability to access a lower berth or move through an overcrowded coach can have a greater impact on elderly passengers.

 

Vipul Wadhwa, partner, Singhania & Co., said the case demonstrates why passengers should preserve evidence when a service goes wrong. He said the family’s RailMadad complaints and photographs provided a consistent record of what happened during the journey.

 

Supriya Majumdar, partner, Ellara Law Offices, said a confirmed railway ticket is not simply a receipt but represents an obligation to provide the reserved service. She added that overcrowding can also become a safety concern when passengers cannot access clear passages or common facilities, particularly in the case of senior citizens, children and people with health-related vulnerabilities.

 

 

The ruling offers a practical lesson: Do not rely only on verbal complaints. Create a record.

 

Passengers facing unauthorised occupation or severe overcrowding should:

 

• 
  Use the RailMadad platform to lodge a complaint and retain the complaint reference number and screenshots.
• 
  Note the coach and berth number, train number, date and approximate time of the incident.
• 
  Take photographs or videos showing overcrowding or unauthorised occupation, where it is safe and appropriate to do so.
• 
  Approach the TTE and railway security personnel and record the response where possible.
• 
  Preserve the original reservation details and payment records.

 

If the issue is not resolved and causes substantial inconvenience, consider approaching the consumer commission with the supporting evidence.

 

The Palakkad commission did not order a refund of the fare because the family completed the journey. Instead, it awarded Rs 50,000 for the deficiency in service, mental agony and inconvenience, along with Rs 25,000 as litigation costs.

 

The Railways was given 45 days to make the payment. Failure to do so would attract a solatium of Rs 500 per month or part thereof until payment.

 

A confirmed reservation carries rights, and when those rights are not honoured, contemporaneous evidence can make a consumer claim considerably stronger.