The instant complaint has been filed by Sri Abir Ghosh u/s.13 of C.P.Act with a prayer for issuing direction upon the O.Ps to get back his ticket value of Rs. 4504.98 plus litigation charges plus conveyance, plus interest and miscellaneous totaling a sum of Rs. 19,504/-.
The fact of the case ,in a nut shell, as per complaint is that the complainant had booked a ticket through online ticketing system vide PNR No. 4818789132, date of journey 22/09/2014 from Bangalore City to New Bangaigaon being Train No. 15901, Class Third A.C and cost of ticket @ Rs. 2252.49 each for three persons viz. complainant himself, Mr. Rana Baul and Pradeep Agarwal. But unfortunately out of three passengers only the ticket of complainant was confirmed and other two tickets were not confirmed and as such they were not eligible for journey. The complainant availed the journey in the said train but other two passengers were not travelled against the ticket and accordingly a certificate bearing No.003270 was issued by the running In-charge of the coach/TTE.
Thereafter, the complainant sent request to IRCTC vide TDR reference No.100000013711324 for refund of non travel amount on 25/04/2014 and IRCTC conveyed him to send the original copy of non travel certificate issued by the running In-charge of the coach/TTE to the Head Quarter GGM (IT),IRCTC and the same was posted without delay vide postal Doc Ref. No.ARW1924915891N but unfortunately their TDR team Head has denied to refund his claim and they had informed through e-mail with remarks that as per their chart both 2nd and 3rd passenger has availed the said journey.
The further case of the complainant is that the 2nd and 3rd passenger were getting their ticket on same day in same train through current reservation counter of Bangalore city Station up to Howrah Junction and the said matter had already been informed to IRCTC through e-mail but unfortunately they denied to take any action for refund the money to those passengers.
Hence, this case filed by the complainant named above.
Both the O.Ps have contested the case by filing Written Version separately.
The case of the O.P.No.1/IRCTC Ltd. is that the case is not maintainable in law and the case is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and the case is barred by the principles of waiver, estoppels and acquiescence. The case is also initiated with malafide, motivated and misconceived intention and there is no cause of action against the O.Ps. The O.P has also averred that the complainant being not a ‘consumer’ u/s. 2(d) of C.P. Act so far relation between the complainant and the O.Ps concern and in this view of matter and the purported claim of the complainant against the O.P is liable to be dismissed.
This O.P has also averred that the IRCTC is a Public Sector undertaking which provides access to Railway Passenger Reservation through its server and internet connectivity to book ticket and there is no deficiency in service on the part of this O.P. The service provider for railway e-ticket booking against which IRCTC charges to the extent of using the service for booking however, provision of seats, reservation and cancellation of railway tickets etc. are within the purview of Railway Department and rules framed by railways are applicable to the passengers utilizing railway travel facility of Indian Railway and booking tickets through e-ticket system and IRCTC and railway department are two distinct entities.
It has been further alleged by O.P.No.1 that the complainant booked e-ticket EX.KSR Bangalore to New Bongaigaon for three passengers namely 1) Mr. Abir Ghosh, M/42, 2) Mr Rana Baul, M/47 and 3) Mr. Pradeep Agarwal, M/44 on 22/09/2014, in Class Third AC by Train No.15901, PNR No.4818789132 was issued on payment of fare of Rs. 2252.49/- for each person in total amounting to Rs.6735/- and Rs.22.47 towards internet charges. The ticket also showed CONFIRMED status as per IRCTC server status for one passenger ticket only and the two remain in the waiting list and as per Railway Act they are not eligible for journey.
It has also been averred by the O.P.No.1 that IRCTC only provided access to Railway Passenger Reservation System (PRS) through its server and internet connectivity to book ticket through it. As soon as an e-ticket is issued from IRCTC website, fare gets transferred to railway department and the refund is decided by the concerned Zonal Railway under whom the last destination station of the train falls as per Extant Railway Refund Rules and thus the IRCTC is not the appropriate authority for the complainant to send the request for refund for PNR No.4818789132. However, on the request of the complainant IRCTC filed the TDR ref case No.100000013711324 for refund of non travel amount on 24/04/2014 for reason “Party partially Confirmed/wait listed and Waitlisted passengers did no travel,” on 25/06/20s14. The TDR was forwarded to the concerned Railway through Enhanced Coaching Refund System (ECRS).
The further case of the O.P is that the TDR Ref No.100000013711324 was repudiated by the concerned railway that is , Northeast Frontier Railway with remarks “ As per chart , Passenger Has Travelled.”. Therefore, the O.P by letter dated 12./11/2014 informed the complainant that the refund case pertaining to PNR No.4818789132 has been regretted by Railways for the reason that, on verification Railways has conveyed that the passengers has travelled on 25/09/2014 and thus the complainant was asked to issue proof for alternate travelling details of not travelling so that the IRCTC can forward to the concerned railways to reconsider their refund. Thereafter, the complainant posted the certificate of non travelling to the 003270 bearing No.003268 dated 23/09/2014 issued by the TTE. Thereafter, on request of the complainant the case has been re-opened and sent to Chief Commercial Manager/Refund, Northeast Frontier Railway for reconsideration of the same, who is the appropriate authority to deal with this case for refund.
It has been further averred by the O.P.No.1 that as per policy framed by Railway Board vide Commercial Circular No. 60/2005, issued vide letter No.2004/TGI/10/P/e-ticketing dated 28/12/2005, refund is processed by the Zonal Railway under whose jurisdiction destination station of the train falls. Railway has introduced Enhanced registered and transferred to the concerned Chief Commercial Manager Refunds funds and some of the rules applicable towards cancellation of e-tickets.
The O.P.No.1 has denied all other allegations leveled by the complainant againstO.P.No.1/IRCTC as there is no deficiency in service on their part and has prayed for dismissal of the case.
The case of the O.P.No.2/DCM, N.F.Railway is that the case is not maintainable either on fact or under the law and the complainant is not consumer under the C.P. Act and the case is also bad for non-joinder of necessary party. The O.P.No.2 is not the necessary party in this case.
The O.P No.2 has alleged in his W/V that the complainant has grievance against IRCTC from where the complainant purchased the ticket. This O.P is no way connected with t he affairs of the complainant for refund against the ticket as alleged by the complainant. This O.P has been made party unnecessarily.
The O.P.No.2 further averred that regarding O.P.No.1, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the address of O.P.No.1 is at New Delhi. As such O.P.No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.
The complainant and the O.Ps have filed evidence on affidavit. On perusal, it appears that those are nothing but reiterated version of complaint and W/V.
The complainant has also filed written argument. The O.P No.2 did not file any written argument and Ld. Agent for the O.P.No.1 has submitted that the W/V and evidence on affidavit filed by him be treated as written argument of this case. The O.P.No.2 has also filed written argument.
Both the complainant and O.P.No.1 have filed some photocopies of documents in support of their respective cases.
We have gone through the materials on record very carefully and also perused the documents which are lying on record and also heard arguments of the parties.
In this context, the following issues were necessarily come up for consideration to reach just decision of the case.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the complainant a consumer u/s.2 (1)(d)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act ?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant case?
- Have the O.Ps any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to get any relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point No.1 and 2:-
It appears from the case record that the complainant purchased railway tickets through on line for journey from Bangalore City to New Bangaigaon for himself along with his two friends by a single ticket. O.P.No.1 is a commissioned agent of the Indian Railway from which that ticket was purchased. Therefore, both the O.P.No.1 and Indian Railway have liability to ensure the journey of the actual ticket purchaser(s). The ticket-purchaser(s) have accrued the right to avail the journey by rail with the strength of purchase of the ticket(s) i.e. the complainant and his 2(two) friends have been entitled to travel by the train from Bangalore City to New Bangaigaon on and from 22/09/2014 which is fallen within the purview u/s. 2(i)(d)(ii) of the C. P. Act, 1986 i.e. the complainant became the ‘Consumer’ in the eye of law.
Whereas the status of the complainant is a consumer and whereas he resides in the District of Alipurduar which is the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and whereas the claim amount is less than the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum (Twenty Lakhs) as such this For a has jurisdiction to try this case.
Thus, the decisions of both the points No.1 and 2 have gone in favour of the complainant.
Point No.3 and 4 :-
For brevity and convenience both the points No.3 and 4 are taken up together for consideration as these points are interlinked to each other.
On perusal of the materials on record and hearing of arguments of both sides it is revealed that the complainant has purchased a single railway ticket through on line from IRCTC (O.P.No.1) for journey for himself along with his other 2(two) friends named (1) Rana Baul and (2) Pradeep Agarwala and the destination of that journey was on 22/09/2014 from Bangalore City to New Bangaigaon. But the ticket of the complainant was confirmed and the rest two tickets were no confirmed resulting which having been non-entitled to travel by that train (being No. 15901). The remaining two persons (Rana Baul and Pradeep Agarwala) took alternative measure and got/purchased tickets from current reservation counter of Bangalore City Station on the same day for the same train (No. 15901) but destination was from Bangalore City Station to Howrah Junction. Therefore, in the eye of law, both Mr. Rana Baul and Pradeep Agarwala are entitled to get back their previous purchased tickets amount and law does not allow the complainant for claiming the amount of purchased tickets of Mr. Baul and Mr. Agarwala.
The complainant has completed his journey from Bangalore City to New Bangaigaon with the strength of his confirmed ticket. Therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Railway towards the complainant. Mere claim of the complainant that he has purchased the tickets of Mr. Rana Baul and Mr. Pradeep Agarwala is not tenable in the eye of law. If, Mr. Baul and Mr. Agarwala file such case or if the complainant claims such relief representing Mr. Baul and Mr. Agarwala with the strength of their power of attorney in that event the fate of this case could be otherwise.
Contradiction between two documents i.e in between the certificate bearing No.003270 issued by the running-n-charge of the Coach/TTE (Appendix-‘B’) and the passenger chart (Appendix-‘C’) does not accrue the right of the complainant to seek such relief as he prayed for as he has no right to bank upon such fault of the railway because he availed his journey by his own confirmed ticket. There was no fault on the part of the railway towards the complainant.
Moreover, the complainant submitted in the open Ejlash that he has no claim against the O.P.No.2 (Railway) and the O.P.No. 2 also admitted the same.
Considering such position of the complainant positive results of Points No.1 and 2 do not help the complainant. Under this circumstances we have no alternative but to hold that the instant case has failed to achieve its success.
Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, it is,
ORDERED
that the instant case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps.
No order as to costs.
Let a plain copy of this Final Order be supplied to the concerned parties by hand/be sent under registered post with A/D forthwith for information and necessary action.
Dictated & Corrected by me
