DATE OF FILING : 28.04.2014.
DATE OF S/R : 03.09.2014.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 25.02.2016.
1. Shantanu Gupta,
son of late Sushil Chandra Gupta,
residing at flat no. 81CC/5, Anupama Phase II,
V.I.P. Road, P.S. Baguiati,
Kolkata 700 052.
2. Champa Gupta,
wife of Shantanu Gupta,
3. Sampriti Gupta,
daughter of Shantanu Gupta,
4. Shashwata Gupta.
son of Shantanu Gupta,
all residing at flat no. 81CC/5, Anupama Phase II,
V.I.P. Road, P.S. Baguiati,
Kolkata 700 052. …………………………………………… COMPLAINANTS.
1. I.R.C.T.C.,
represented by the
Chief Commercial Officer,
Easter Railway,
having its office at Kailaghat Road,
Kolkata 700 001.
2. The Senior DCM,
Eastern Railway,
having its office at Howrah,
PIN 744101.………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.
F I N A L O R D E R
- This is an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by the petitioners, Shantanu Gupta, and three others, against the IRCTC represented by Chief Commercial Manager, Eastern Railway, and Sr. D.C.M., Eastern Railway, praying for a refund of ticket fare of Rs. 13,460/- from IRCTC in favour of petitioners and Rs. 75,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment inflicted upon them by IRCTC.
- The case of the petitioners is that petitioners booked tickets for travelling by Rajdhani Express from New Delhi Station to Howrah by train no. 12302 on 05.06.2011 with PNR no. 2319921712 and the status of the tickets for four persons were WL 3 to 6 on payment of Rs. 13,460/- to IRCTC. The ticket was never confirmed and the petitioners thought that the whole amount would be refunded in their favour and on 08.07.2011 the petitioner requested the o.ps. to refund the money but in vain. He took up the matter to the General Manager, Operation, IRCTC, through his letter dated 15.6.2011 and 06.03.2012 but IRCTC sent him email conveying sorry for the inconvenience of the petitioner and intimated him that the matter has been forwarded to CCM, Eastern Railway, on 08.07.2011. On 27.11.2013 and also IRCTC informed that they sent email to the department for a necessary action but till the filing of case on 28.4.2014 and not a single paisa was refunded. The petitioner lodged complaint before Sr. D.C.M., Eastern Railway, on 17.04.2014 but no response and the whole refund system simply harassed them and compelling them to file the case.
- The o.p. no. 2, Sr. D.C.M., Eastern Railway, contesting the case by filing a written version denying the allegations made against them and submitted that the case was not maintainable and the petitioners have no cause of action to file the case and they suppressed material facts before the Forum. The o.p. no. 2 further submitted that the petitioners should know that in the case of wait listed tickets there is no question of performance of journey and there would be no refund of fare in case of RAC and wait listed tickets after three hours of actual departure of train and thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. no. 2 as the cause of action was on 05.06.2011 but the application for refund was made on 08.07.2011 even if as per Railway Rules the refund be prayed within three hours after the actual departure of train in the case of RAC and wait listed ticket as per Railway Board Notification dated 06.06.2013. Hence the case be dismissed.
- The o.p. no. 1 contested the case by filing a separate written version denying the allegations and submitted that IRCTC is an independent corporate entity and the same cannot be sued through Chief Commercial Manager, Eastern Railway. Further, the case of o.p. no. 1 is that the IRCTC provides access to railway passenger reservation system through his server and internet connectivity to book ticket through it and IRCTC has no role in deciding the refund as it is decided by railways which is an independent organization. Soon after purchase of tickets, the fares collected are transferred to railways and on receipt of refund amount from the railways it is sent to the user. In the instant case, the refund was repudiated by the office after about three years and there was no deficiency in service on the part of IRCTC. It is fact that the petitioners had to file on line TDR claiming refund as the ticket was not confirmed after the chart being prepared. But in the instant case the TDR was filed on 08.07.2011 and the same was forwarded to Chief Commercial Manager ( Refund ), Eastern Railway, and the CCM repudiated the case by his letter March, 2014. There is no deficiency in service on the part of IRCTC. Thus the case be dismissed against them.
- Upon pleadings of parties the following points arose for determination :
- Is the case maintainable in its present form ?
- Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- All the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity for discussion and to skip of reiteration. In support of their case, the petitioner filed affidavit for himself on behalf of other three petitioners who are his family members and he also filed documents showing his purchase 1st class tickets of Kolkata – Rajdhani from New Delhi to Howrah Station with journey date on 05.6.2011 through internet. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that he could not avail the Kolkata – Rajdhani from New Delhi as the tickets were not confirmed and he purchased the four tickets on payment of a consideration of Rs. 13,460/-. He filed many a copies of the email informing the matter to the IRC TC as well as the Railways who informed him that the matter has been taken up by them and sent to the refund office of the Eastern Railway for taking necessary action. Regarding the facts of refund it is stated by the o.ps. by filing Railway Board Notification dated 06.06.2013 which came into force on 01.07.2013 that as per Rule 7 the RAC and wait listed tickets if presented for cancellation then refund fare shall be given after deducting clerkage and it is also noted therein that the tickets are presented for cancellation upto three hours after the actual departure of the train irrespective of distance and also the passenger may get the tickets refunded from any passenger reservation counter and no refund of fare shall be granted for RAC and WL tickets after three hours of actual departure of the train.
- Ld. counsel for the o.p. produced before this Forum a copy of the notification of the Railway Board under Ministry of Railways dated 06.06.2013 wherefrom the counsel quoted stating that no refund would be made if the ticket is presented three hours after the actual departure of train. It is also mentioned that the said notification shall come into force on and from 1st day of July, 2013. Thus a notification which was issued on 06.06.2013 with effect from 01.07.2013 cannot put any restriction on a ticket which was purchased for journey on 05.6.2011 about two years prior to such notification and also there is no mention in the notification that such notification was in the form of a delegated legislation and to have retrospective effect and in the absence of any such mention of retrospective operation of the notification this Forum discard to accept such notification in this case where the cause of action arose two years prior to such notification.
- Ld. counsel for the petitioner submitted that his client purchased tickets through electronic reservation system and simply these are called ‘E’ tickets which are automatically refunded if the wait listed tickets are not confirmed. He also referred before this Forum pages of the railway time table wherein specifically mentioned rules about the refund of tickets and the time table was published in the year 2015 and it is noticed herein from rule 8 that in case of wait listed ticket on which status of all passengers are wait listed, names of passengers booked in passengers naming record ( PNR ) shall be dropped from the reservation chart and refund of fare shall be credited to the customer’s account after deducting the clerkage charges through system automatically as in Clause iv of rule 8. Thus it is crystal clear that in case of cancellation of ‘E’ tickets, the refund would be made automatically after deduction of the clerkage charges and thus the petitioner in this case is entitled to get the refund.
In view of above discussion and findings this Forum finds that the petitioners have succeeded in proving their case and they are entitled to refund of the amount paid on their behalf.
In the result, the application succeeds.
Court fee paid is correct.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 252 of 2014 ( HDF 252 of 2014 ) be and the same is allowed on contest against the o.ps. with costs of Rs. 5,000/- be borne by the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 equally.
The petitioners are entitled to the reliefs as prayed for and the o.p. no. 1, IRCTC, is directed to refund a sum of Rs. 13,460/- to the petitioners within 30 days from the date of this order and also both the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 are directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment failing the petitioners would be at liberty to put the order in execution and also the awarded sum would carry interest @ 9% after expiry of the date of appeal.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, free of costs.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( B. D. Nanda )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
