The present complaint has been preferred by the young couple (accompanied by their adolescent daughter) serving with the GREF (Army) Station, Pathankot seeking redressal of their consumer grievance(s) caused by the titled opposite party Railway authorities by way of non-refund of auto-cancellation of confirmed e-tickets upon the instant Cancellation of the booked Train on 19.06.2015; through judicious dispensation of justice by refund of the cancellation amount with interest along with cost and compensation, all in the interest of equity, good conscious and natural justice; under the statutory provisions of the applicable statute legally addressed as Consumer Protection Act’ 1986.

2. The complainants’ case in brief is that having spent their holidays back at home he booked ‘3’ confirmed e-tickets costing Rs.6,214.94P to travel back from Kayankulam to Pathankot on 19.06.2015 to join their duties there and again purchased another ticket from the starting station itself, for his mother-in-law who had also decided to travel with them. However, on account of some technical aspects, the booked Train was cancelled & journey abandoned. The complainant no.1 cancelled the station-purchased (mother in law) ticket there and then to get ‘full-refund’ but was advised by the station-authority that refund of his ‘3’ booked e-tickets (cancelled on account of Train getting cancelled) shall be auto-credited in his related account within a period of 2-3 days. Left with no other choice, the complainant had to book ‘4-tatkal’ tickets by paying extra charges of Rs.1,050/- to reach Pathankot along with his family members. However, upon non-receipt of refund vide the auto-credit, the complainant contacted the opposite parties and was shocked to learn that the ‘sought-after’ refund was not available since he was to apply for refund of his ‘3’ e-tickets within ‘3’ days of the day of train- cancellation and thus prompted the present complainant seeking the refund amount of Rs.6,814.94P besides the extra-paid sum for 4-tatkal tickets amounting to Rs.1,050/- along with Rs.11,900/- to cover 7-days leave-loss and Rs.20,000/- as ‘damages’ etc for mental pain and suffering.

3. The opposite parties appeared upon service of summons through their joint counsel to present their respective but parallel objections/contentions to pray its final dismissal as:

i) Plea of absence of jurisdiction with the consumer fora in the light of the exclusive jurisdiction bestowed upon Railway Claims Tribunal by virtue of the related statute known as: the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987;

ii) Complainant/claimant’s failure to file the requisite e-tickets refund claim with the appropriate authorities within the prescribed period of 72 hours;

iii) No proof of ‘deficiency in service’ produced on records of proceedings by the present complainant;

iv) The opposite party 2 IRCTC, New Delhi has been wrongly enjoined in the array of defendants since it has no role to play with ‘ticket-refund’ business;

4. The complainants have filed the affidavit Ex.C1 to support the allegations of the complaint along with copies of the refund-request, postal receipt and e-tickets and others (Ex.C2, Ex.C3, Ex.C4 & Ex.C5); whereas, the OPs have produced its affidavit Ex.OP1/1 and others (Ex.OP1/2 & Ex.OP1/3); and further Ex.OP2/1 and others likewise (Ex.OP2/2 to Ex.OP2/3) to support their side of the dispute. It shall be pertinent here to indicate that the Ex.OP1/2 is same as Ex.OP2/2 being a copy of circular with overwritten date(s) but does not specify (as claimed by the OPs) that auto refund is applicable from 01.07.2015. Further Ex.OP1/3 is same as Ex.OP2/3 and is not relevant to refund-claims pertaining to e-tickets but to railway tickets in general. On the other hand the documentary evidence as produced by the complainant proves the facts pertaining to his levelled out allegations.

5. We have carefully examined and thoroughly considered the evidence along with its supporting documents (statutory merits etc) as available on records of the proceedings in the backdrop of the arguments as put forth by the learned counsels for the participating litigants and also the scope of ‘adverse inference’ that may be discretionarily drawn on account of non-production of some vital documents ignored to be produced during the proceedings.

6. We find that the complainants have successfully proved the non-credit of auto-refund in his account of the ‘3’ nos of e-tickets as assured by the Kayankulam Station authority and that has not even been refused/contested by the titled opposite parties who have apparently exhibited ‘deficiency in service’ to have unscrupulously exploit the subservient position of the complainants and that lines them up to an adverse statutory award under the Act. The OP’s plea of absence of adjudicatory jurisprudence with the consumer Fora is out-rightly set aside/rejected since by virtue of section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the opted out instant consumer complaint has been an alternative remedy and the aggrieved claimant shall be at liberty to opt out for a remedy of his choice. Here, the OPs instead of finding an amicable and consumer friendly solution in such-like situations have instead exploited the same to the detriment of the ‘consumer’ and to its own profit. Finally, the OP service providers need be held responsible and liable to repay/refund the paid amounts for booking their e-tickets by the consumers that had to be cancelled on account of cancellation of the very Train by the Railway authorities, may for any reason.

7. In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the opposite party #1 i.e., the Chief Comm. Manager (Refund) N. Railway, New Delhi; to refund the full amount paid for booking the ‘3’ e-tickets to the complainant (without any deduction of whatsoever) besides to pay him Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation for having suffered harassment within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the aggregate awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of orders till actual payment.

8. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.

(Naveen Puri)

                                                                                  President.

ANNOUNCED:                                               (Jagdeep Kaur)

NOV. 25, 2016                                                           Member.

*YP*