why do you sell more tkts than seats? HC asks rlys
Extract
from the article:
The Delhi High Court recently issued a stern rebuke to Indian Railways for its
practice of selling far more tickets than the actual seat capacity available in
train coaches. The court noted that allowing passengers to travel in overbooked
coaches contravenes safety and comfort standards, and questioned the rationale
behind such ticket sales that exceed the physical limits. This judicial
intervention underscores a critical failure in the ticketing management system,
where profit-seeking or operational pressures have overshadowed passenger
welfare and regulatory compliance.
Moreover, the judgment implicitly calls for a recalibration
of the railways’ ticket distribution policies to ensure that the number of
passengers permitted strictly aligns with the seating infrastructure. The
excessive sale of tickets not only strains the coaches but erodes public trust,
as passengers end up competing for seats they had legitimately purchased. The
court’s admonishment highlights the need for transparency, accountability, and
a demand-based pricing strategy that respects both capacity constraints and
passenger rights.
My
Take:
A. Irrefutable
Law of Economics
Reflecting on my earlier blog from 2016, I wrote: "Seats will be sold in
the normal fare in the beginning, it will go on increasing by 10 per cent with
every 10 per cent of berths sold with the ceiling limit at maximum 50 per cent
depending upon the demand." This principle of dynamic pricing was designed
to address the very misalignment between demand and capacity that the Delhi
High Court has now spotlighted. I had suggested that railways must modernize
and adopt true cost recovery mechanisms, breaking free from decades of
subsidized fare structures that have only engendered inefficiencies.
Looking back, this judicial critique validates the necessity
for pricing mechanisms that intelligently modulate supply and demand instead of
overbooking coaches irresponsibly. The point I stressed about commuters needing
to pay the actual cost to sustain quality services ties perfectly to why
selling more tickets than seats is inherently unfair and deleterious. It’s a
clarion call reminding us that economic laws remain “irrefutable” and must
guide public service sectors like railways.
B. Dear
Ashwini Vaishnawji – Congratulations
In this recent blog, I commended the Railway Ministry’s push towards
transparency, especially around ticket pricing and availability—initiatives
critical to eliminating confusion and undue hardship for passengers. I
advocated for seamless integration between physical ticketing booths and online
platforms such as the IRCTC app, ensuring passengers possess indisputable proof
of booking and clarity on seat availability.
The Delhi High Court’s concerns align seamlessly with this
advocacy. Selling tickets beyond seat capacity undermines the transparency that
these reforms aim to create. Passengers deserve to know, unequivocally, whether
their ticket corresponds to an actual seat, and such clarity could prevent
overcrowding. This also protects vulnerable groups like migrants and laborers,
who often bear the brunt of such opaque practices. Thus, digital transparency
and accountability ought to accompany any policy limiting ticket sales strictly
to coach capacities.
Call to
Action:
To the Honorable Railway Minister and Indian Railways management, this judicial
censure is an opportunity, not merely a reprimand. It is imperative to urgently
reconfigure ticketing algorithms to ensure no more tickets are sold than the
available coach capacity. Implement and enforce dynamic, demand-based pricing
transparently, leveraging digital platforms to provide real-time seat
availability data to passengers.
Furthermore, comprehensive audits and passenger feedback
mechanisms should be institutionalized to guarantee adherence to these
standards. The safety and dignity of millions of daily commuters must never be
compromised in the quest for revenue or operational expediency. Let this be a
watershed moment where passenger rights and systemic accountability take
precedence.
With regards,
Hemen Parekh
No comments:
Post a Comment