Tipping can’t be extortion

Pushpa Girimaji

On many train journeys, particularly on Rajdhani trains, the railway catering staff forces passengers to pay exorbitant tips. When the train is approaching the destination, they come with a tray to every passenger and demand that they pay as much as Rs 200 towards their tip. Those who pay less are insulted and humiliated. What can I do in such a situation?

First and foremost, tipping is a voluntary gesture, the amount depending on your perception of the quality of service. It is highly subjective and you may want to give a big tip if you are happy with the service or may not give anything at all if you are unhappy. So, the person who is being tipped cannot demand it nor can he determine the quantum. The railway catering staff cannot pressurise you into paying a tip against your will. Do not allow them to do so and the next time you are confronted with such a situation, send a complaint to the railway minister.

I must also mention here that in response to a number of passenger complaints about this, the new railways minister Piyush Goyal has directed the Railways to stop this practice of demanding tips. Any violation will invite heavy penalty, he has said. He has also asked the catering inspectors to monitor this and ensure compliance. The minister has also said that he would look for complaints on social media. So hopefully, this harassment of railway passengers will now cease. If not, just refuse to pay and complain.

Can I file a complaint against this before the consumer court?

There are two issues here. The first is the general problem of forcible tipping. Now that the railway minister has issued a directive against it, any violation will give rise to a complaint as it constitutes deficient service.

The second issue here is that of the harassment caused to you as a passenger as a result of the forcible collection of tip. Here, it’s not as if the railway staff ‘serves’ the food at a table, as in a restaurant. All that it does is hand over the food tray or packet to you. So, there is nothing extra that the staff is doing to deserve a tip.

Besides, the Railways collect from you, the cost of the food, which includes the cost of hiring the catering staff that distributes the food. Asking for money over and above that becomes ‘overcharging’ and, thus, an unfair trade practice. Pressurising and harassing passengers to pay a tip and pay what is determined by the staff constitutes deficient service. The practice can be described as an unfair trade practice and deficient service. And the Railways are accountable for the behaviour of its staff. Also, even though this practice has been continuing for a number of years and passengers have been complaining, the Railways did not take adequate steps to stop it, till now. Passengers who are victims of such high-handed behaviour of the catering staff can file a complaint demanding compensation from the Railways for the loss and harassment caused.

I must mention an interesting case decided by the consumer forum some years ago on the issue of tipping. Here, Deepak Jain, the consumer, had hired the services of a wedding band for his son’s wedding and fixed the rate for the total package as Rs 42,000, which included the tip for the person in charge of the mare.

However, on the day of the wedding, the mare attendant misbehaved and demanded more money as his tip, causing the consumer harassment and embarrassment in front of the guests. In an ex-parte order (the service provider did not appear despite notice), the Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum II held that the mare attendant (ghoriwala) not only created a scene, but also humiliated the complainant in front of his guests and caused him mental agony and distress. Such acts and conduct amounted to deficient service and the wedding band was vicariously liable for the conduct of its representative, the ghoriwala, the Forum said. It, therefore, directed that the complainant be paid Rs 10,000 towards compensation and costs of litigation (Deepak Jain Vs Mohan Band; case number 131/2013; decided on 11-2-2014).