Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/931/2021

Punit Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chandigarh Railways - Opp.Party(s)

Vishal Sharma

02 Feb 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/931/2021
Date of Institution	:	23/12/2021
Date of Decision	:	02/02/2024

 

Punit Jain s/o M.B. Jain r/o Flat No.203, Tower No.B-13, Nirmal Chaya Towers, VIP Road, Zirakpur-140603.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Sub Divisional Manager/Divisional Manager, Chandigarh Railways, Northern Railway, Chandigarh Railway Station, Chandigarh.
2. Indian Railways Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC) through its authorized representative/signatory, B-148, 11^th Floor, Statesman House, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 110001.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Vishal Sharma, Advocate for complainant
	:	Sh. Paramjit Singh, Advocate for OP-1
	:	Sh. Sateekshan Sood, Advocate for Sh.Saksham Arora, Advocate for OP-2

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Punit Jain, complainant against the aforesaid opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that, in the month of August 2018, complainant had booked a confirmed ticket (Annexure C-1) of 2^nd AC train for himself and his family members from Vaishno Devi to Chandigarh in Shree Vaishno Devi-Kalka Express (hereinafter referred to as “subject train”) by paying total fare of ₹2,560/-. On 20.10.2018, when the complainant alongwith his family reached the Railway Station, Katra to board the subject train, he could not find the allotted berth and thereafter came to know that the Railway Department had changed his ticket from 2^nd AC to 3^rd AC without any telephonic/electronic communication by way of SMS or email or other mode.  The complainant requested the TT to resolve the issue who told the complainant that he is not having any seat in 2^nd AC to accommodate the complainant and his family. Accordingly, complainant was compelled to travel in 3rd AC berth with his family members and due to downgrading of berth, complainant and his family members had to suffer a lot as the toilets were not hygienic and they were deprived of the services and facilities of 2^nd AC berth.  The complainant requested the TT to issue a certificate for their travel in lower class for refund of difference amount between 2^nd AC and 3^rd AC berths, but, the TT refused to issue the same. On 22.10.2018 the complainant sent an email (Annexure C-2) to the OPs and explained the whole incident, but, with no result.  The fare for 3^rd AC berth was around ₹765/- per ticket whereas the fare of 2^nd AC berth ticket was around ₹1,280/- per ticket and the difference of the same comes to be approximately ₹515/- per ticket and a chart downloaded from the internet showing the fare prices is Annexure C-3.  Earlier the complainant had filed a consumer complaint, but, the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 29.10.2021 (Annexure C-4) with liberty to file a fresh one.  In this manner, the aforesaid act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their separate written versions.
3. In its written version, OP-1, inter alia, took preliminary objections of maintainability, limitation, cause of action and also that as the complainant has not produced the certificate from the ticket checking staff TDR On-line filling reasons upto 2 days from the date of issue of certificate and has filed the present consumer complaint after 3½ years, the consumer complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Even the answering OP has no concern with the refund issue as the E-ticket was purchased online mode IRTC and the complainant can get his grievance redressed with OP-2.  On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
4. OP-2 filed its short written version and resisted the claim of the complainant on the ground that the answering OP is only a service provider online booking platform in order book rail tickets through its website which is directly linked with the Passenger Reservation System being managed by the Railways and has nothing to do with the reliefs which the complainant is seeking.  However, it is admitted that the complainant had booked online confirmed tickets in coach A1 bearing seat Nos. 43 & 44 for his travel rom Shri Vaishno Devi Katra to Chandigarh vide subject train after paying a sum of ₹2,560/-. It is alleged that as the complainant had not submitted online TDR and “no refund certificate” to the answering OP, refund was not processed as per rules and there is no fault of the answering OP in the entire incident.  On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
5. The complainant chose not to file the rejoinder.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents. However, as OP-1 failed to file evidence despite grant of sufficient opportunity, therefore, vide order dated 18.8.2023 of this Commission, opportunity to file the same was closed.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully, including written arguments.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant had booked the rail ticket with 2^nd AC berth for his travel from Shri Vaishno Devi, Katra to Chandigarh alongwith his family members  on payment of fare of ₹2,560/-, as is also evident from the copy of ticket (Annexure C-1) and on the relevant date i.e. on the day of journey, complainant was not allotted any berth in the 2^nd AC compartment of the subject train, rather the complainant and his family members were forced to travel in 3^rd AC berth, which fact has also not been disputed by the OPs in their written versions, and the difference of the ticket fare has not been refunded to the complainant by the OPs, till date, despite of repeated requests of the complainant, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the OPs are unjustified in not refunding the amount of differential fare to the complainant and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant, or if the OPs are justified in not refunding the said amount to the complainant and the consumer complainant, being false and frivolous, is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OPs.
   2. Perusal of copy of ticket (Annexure C-1) indicates that seat/berth No.43-44 were allotted to the complainant and one Ms.Swati and the ticket was for total three passengers including one minor child namely Parshv Jain and the total ticket price was ₹2,560/-. Annexure C-3 is the ticket fare chart which indicates that the price of AC 3-tier is less than AC 2-tier and the difference of the three tickets which the complainant had purchased for travel from Katra to Chandigarh in the subject train comes to ₹1,005/-.  As it further stands proved on record that the complainant had requested the OPs by sending emails to refund the difference amount between the 2^nd AC and 3^rd AC berths and the same has not been refunded to him by the OPs, till date, rather the OPs have come with the plea that the complainant was required to submit a certificate from the ticket checking staff online and only then he was entitled to refund of the fare, it is clear that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs firstly in unilaterally downgrading the berth of the complainant and his family members in the subject train from 2^nd AC to 3^rd AC and thereafter in not even refunding the difference amount of fare between 2^nd AC and 3^rd AC berths. 
   3. Though the consumer complaint of the complainant is also resisted by the OPs on the ground that the same is time barred, but, since it stands proved on record that the complainant has earlier filed a consumer complaint and withdrew the same with liberty to file a fresh one and the delay in filing the complaint has already been condoned by this Commission vide order dated 14.1.2022, it is unsafe to hold that the consumer complaint of the complainant is not maintainable being time barred. 
   4. No doubt, in its written version OP-2 has come with the defence that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part as it is only an intermediary to facilitate booking of tickets and pricing of ticket is not in its control and, thus, it has no role to play in the dispute in hand, however, the ticket (Annexure C-1) clearly indicates that same was booked by OP-2 thus, neither OP-2, being e-commerce entity, nor OP-1, being Railways, can escape from their liability, especially when both the OPs are duty bound to provide service to the consumer as provided under The Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 and the relevant portion of the same is reproduced below for ready reference :-

        4. Duties of e-commerce entities.-

        xxx                   xxx                   xxx

(10) Every e-commerce entity shall effect all payments towards accepted refund requests of the consumers as prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India or any other competent authority under any law for the time being in force, within a reasonable period of time, or as prescribed under applicable laws.

5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is safe to hold that the complainant has successfully proved the cause of action set up in the consumer complaint and the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed. 

4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

1. to pay ₹1,005/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of journey i.e. 20.10.2018 onwards.
2. to pay ₹5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
3. to pay ₹4,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OPs within forty five days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the payable amounts, mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

02/02/2024 hg	Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
	Sd/- [Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member