Railway panel fines India ₹25000 for shared blanket

An Indian passenger won a ₹25,000 compensation claim against Northern Railways after a train journey from Prayagraj to Delhi turned into an uncomfortable struggle over bedding. The dispute began when the traveller, occupying a Reservation Against Cancellation (RAC) berth, was given only a single blanket and pillow for two unrelated passengers sharing the seat. When the passenger requested a second set, the AC coach attendant refused, citing rules that state “one seat, one blanket, one pillow and 2 bedsheets are only provided.” The passenger later took the issue to Railway Services on Twitter, where the attendant reportedly only offered a towel. A subsequent attempt to file a formal complaint at New Delhi Railway Station on October 29, 2002, was stymied by the Travelling Ticket Examiner, who refused to provide a complaint book.

Despite booking the ticket on October 25 for travel on October 28, the complainant did not receive a resolution through standard grievance channels. Six months after the incident, he was informed that his grievance had been forwarded to the Divisional Railway Manager in Allahabad. An RTI query yielded no response, prompting the passenger to seek ₹20 lakh in compensation by approaching the Delhi Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Northern Railways argued against the court’s territorial jurisdiction, claiming that bedrolls are supplied according to rules and that extras are provided “on demand and availability.” The railway administration also claimed the matter was under examination by North Central Railway in Allahabad and noted that linen services were managed through third-party contractors.

The Commission, led by President Monika Aggarwal Srivastava and Members Rajender Dhar and Ritu Garodia, rejected the jurisdiction objection. The judges noted that the complainant resides in Delhi and the journey ended there. They referenced a September 23, 2009 Railway Board circular establishing that RAC passengers in AC classes are entitled to blankets and bedsheets since the bedroll charges are included in their fares. The Commission pointed out that internal communications revealed the Railways had actually slapped a ₹1,000 penalty on the linen contractor for the lapse, yet failed to inform the passenger or compensate him directly.

It is a common frustration for passengers to watch the system punish the vendor while the consumer remains empty-handed. In this case, the Railway Board’s own circular likely allowed the contractor to cut costs by a meager ₹1,000, a tiny fraction of the ticket price, while leaving the passenger to endure a cold night. This pattern of penalizing the lowest-level supplier while leaving the end-user without relief highlights a structural gap in how service accountability is enforced.

Commission orders compensation and costs

“The Railways provided one blanket to two completely unrelated passengers in violation of the circular dated 23.09.2009,” the July 10 order noted. “Thereafter, the Railways imposed a ₹1,000 penalty on the linen contractor, but failed to inform the complainant about the same or provide compensation to the passenger.” The Commission found the Northern Railways guilty of deficiency in service and directed them to pay ₹20,000 as compensation for mental harassment and physical inconveniences. An additional cost of ₹5,000 was awarded towards litigation expenses.