BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD                                        :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                                  : MEMBER

C.C. No. 393/2013 Filed on 20.09.2013

Dated: 15.07.2014

Complainant:

J.K. Antony, A2, Palm Drive Apartments, St. Mary’s Lane, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram-4.

 

                                  (Party in person)

Opposite parties:

 

1. Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd., 9^th Floor, Bank of Baroda Building, 16, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110 001.

   (By adv. M. Rajagopalan Nair)

Additional Opposite party:

1. Chief Commercial Manager, Central Railway, 2^nd Floor, New Administrative Building, D.N. Road, Mumbai-400 001

 

(By adv. S. Renganathan)

 

This C.C having been heard on 05.07.2014, the Forum on 15.07.2014 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD:  PRESIDENT

The facts leading to filing of the complaint are that complainant had booked e-tickets for himself and his son for a train journey from Kochuveli Station to Lokmanyatilak  on 12.05.2013 to attend an interview at Mumbai for his son, that complainant and his son were on a long wait list when booked the ticket on 28.04.2013, that on 11.05.2013 his son decided not to attend the interview, that complainant tried to cancel the e-tickets on 11.05.2013 (over 12 hours before the departure time of 08.50 am), but found that the reservation chart was already prepared and their reservation status had already become confirmed, therefore they could not cancel the e-tickets, that on-line cancellation is possible only till the preparation of reservation charts, which is usually prepared about 6 hours before the departure.  Complainant filed a TDR immediately on 11.05.2013, hoping to get 50% refund allowed by the railway Rules.  On 12.06.2013 complainant received an e-mail from IRCTC stating the rejection of his TDR, the reason being “As per chart, the passenger has travelled”, that complainant replied (e-mail) to IRCTC on 12.06.2013 stating that complainant and his son did not travel.  As no reply received from IRCTC complainant sent a registered letter dated 19.06.2013 to IRCTC to which no reply received by the complainant, that complainant sent another letter on 21.07.2013 to IRCTC to which IRCTC sent e-mail reply regretting the refund and asking to produce proof of ‘not travelling’ such as attendance in office, medical certificate etc. for consideration for granting refund.  Complainant sent e-mail reply to IRCTC stating that he could not produce any proof of ‘not travelling’ since he retired from service.  Opposite parties Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. and Chief Commercial Manager, Central Railway denied the refund.  Hence this complaint for directing opposite parties to refund the e-ticket along with a compensation of Rs. 3,000/-. 

Opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version.  1^st opposite party contends that complainant booked two e-tickets on 28.04.2013 through the 1^st opposite party for a train journey from Kochuveli  station to Lok Manyatilak by train No. 12202 dated 12.05.2013 in 3 A/C classes vide PNR No. 415-1246281, that at the time of booking, the status of the ticket was waiting list, that on 11.05.2013 complainant tried to cancel the ticket but he could not do so as the reservation chart was already prepared.  So he filed Ticket Deposit Receipt on the next day for refund, that e-tickets can be cancelled only till chart preparation is made.  After chart preparation the only option left to the customer is to file TDR for refund, that as per Refunds Rules when IRCTC receive the TDR from the customer, the same will be forwarded to the concerned railways to process the refund and refund amount will be credited back to the same account through which payment was made after receiving the same from the concerned railway.  The refund of e-ticket is processed by the Refund Office of the Railways in whose jurisdiction the destination station of train falls, that IRCTC only provides access to the railway passenger reservation system through its server and internet connectivity to book ticket through it.  1^st opposite party has no role in deciding the refund as it is decided by the concerned Zonal Railway.  IRCTC and Railway are different entities.  Indian Railway is the custodian of the records with respect to the details of passengers who travelled in each train.  1^st opposite party is only an agent of Indian Railway through which customers can book their railway tickets.  It is the Indian Railway who is the competent authority to refund the money when a passenger TDR as per Refund Rules of Indian Railways.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of IRCTC. 

2^nd opposite party contends that complainant purchased e-ticket through 1^st opposite party IRCTC, that IRCTC is making direct payment in the case of TDR which prepared in advance.  IRCTC did not make payment in this case.  IRCTC has transferred the matter to the Central Railway on 19.05.2013.  Central Railway has regretted the claim since confirmed ticket and party might have travelled on prima facie ground.  After re-opening the case through IRCTC by the complainant, the case is processed for payment of Rs. 1,522/- vide pay order No. 299098 through IRCTC, that if payment was made by IRCTC initially then inconvenience to the party would not have arisen, therefore course of action and delay if any is caused due to the mistake of IRCTC, that Central Railways have made best efforts to settle the claim as per the guidelines.  There is no deficiency of service from 2^nd opposite party.  Hence both opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

2. Whether complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 to P8.  In rebuttal opposite parties 1 & 2 have filed proof affidavit. 

Points (i) & (ii):- Admittedly complainant had booked two e-tickets on 28.04.2013 through 1^st opposite party for a train journey from Kochuveli Station to Lok Manyatilak by train No. 12202 dated 12.05.2013 in 3 A/C class vide PNR No. 4151246281.  Admittedly at the time of booking the status of the ticket was waiting list.  There is no dispute on the point that on 11.05.2013 the complainant tried to cancel the e-ticket, but he could not do so as the reservation chart was already prepared.  There is no dispute on the point that complainant had filed TDR for refund.  The very case of the complainant is that TDR was rejected on 12.06.2013 stating that refund is not admissible as informed by Railways, the reason being ‘As per chart, the passenger has travelled’.  Ext. P1 is the Electronic Reservation Slip issued by IRCTC.  As per Ext. P1 complainant paid Rs. 2052.47.  Ext. P2 is the e-mail reply from IRCTC dated 12.06.2013 rejecting the TDR.  Ext. P3 is the copy of the e-mail sent by the complainant to IRCTC stating that complainant has not travelled and requesting the IRCTC to review the TDR and arrange the refund to him.  Ext. P4 is the copy of the letter dated 19.06.2013 addressed to IRCTC by the complainant.  Through Ext. P4 complainant requested IRCTC for refund.  Ext. P5 is the copy of the letter dated 21.07.2013 addressed to General Manager IRCTC by the complainant requesting the 1^st opposite party to approve the TDR and refund.  Ext. P6 is the copy of the e-mail sent by 1^st opposite party regretting the refund and asking to produce proof of not travelling.  Ext. P7 is the copy of the e-mail addressed to 1^st opposite party sent by the complainant on 31.08.2013.  Ext. P8 is the e-mail sent by 1^st opposite party on 14.03.2014 stating that Rs. 1,522/- has been credited to his bank account.  The said refund of Rs. 1,522/- is 75% of the ticket fare.   Thus by Ext. P8 complainant received a refund of Rs. 1,522/- on 11.03.2014.  The refund issue arose from 12.06.2013, thereby a part of the prayer is complied by opposite parties.  Complainant claims a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- for belated payment and for mental agony and strain suffered by the complainant.  Admittedly complainant received refund after a lapse of 9 months.  1^st opposite party is only an agent of Indian Railways through which customers can book their railway tickets.  1^st opposite party had forwarded the TDR to the Indian Railways on 12.05.2013 and according to 1^st opposite party Indian Railways who is the competent authority to refund money when a passenger filed TDR as per the Refund Rules of Indian Railways.  According to 2^nd opposite party IRCTC is making direct payment in the case of TDR which prepared in advance.  But IRCTC did not make payment in this case and had transferred this case to Central Railway on 19.05.2013.  If payment was made by IRCTC initially then inconvenience to the party would not have arisen.  Therefore according to 2^nd opposite party if there was any delay that was due to the mistake of the 1^st opposite party and 2^nd opposite party has made best efforts to settle the claim as per guidelines available.  1^st opposite party has produced the copy of the Refund Rules at the time of argument of the case.  The said Refund Rules discuss about e-ticket booking and its cancellation.  In the case of e-ticket cancellation after chart preparation, for confirmed tickets, the rule applicable is as follows: “Refund on confirmed reservation.  The customers are requested to use the online TDR filing and status tracking service provided by IRCTC.  Select the ‘File TDR’ Link in the left panel under the ‘My Transactions’ menu for filing TDR online IRCTC will forward the claim to concerned railways to process the refund and money of refund amount will be credited back to same account through which payment was made after receiving the same from the concerned Railways.  In case of e-ticket to refund is processed by the Refund Office of the Zonal Railways in whose jurisdiction the destination station of the train falls”.  On going through the above rule we find that IRCTC will forward the claim to concerned Railways to process the refund and money of refund amount will be credited back to the same account through which payment was made after receiving the same from the concerned Railways.  In this case the payment was directly given by Indian Railways to the customer.  1^st opposite party has acted as per the Refund Rules, but 2^nd opposite party has not acted as per the Refund Rules.  Due to the action of the 2^nd opposite party the refund amount was with them for 9 months.  Though complainant approached 2^nd opposite party through e-mail and by registered post, 2^nd opposite party never responded positively to release the refund amount in time, thereby the action of the 2^nd opposite party amounts to deficiency in service for which complainant is entitled to compensation which we fix at Rs. 2,000/-.

 

In the result, complaint is allowed.  2^nd opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- as compensation to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of this order.  Both parties shall bear and suffer their respective costs.          

 

 

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. 

 

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 15^th day of July 2014.

 

Sd/-

G. SIVAPRASAD                   : PRESIDENT

 

          Sd/-

R. SATHI                      : MEMBER

 

          Sd/-

                                                                        LIJU B. NAIR                : MEMBER

 

jb

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C.C. No. 393/2013

APPENDIX

 

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

          P1     - Copy of electronic reservation slip issued by IRCTC.

P2     - e-mail reply from IRCTC dated 12.06.2013

P3     - Copy of e-mail sent by the complainant to IRCTC.

P4     - Copy of letter dated 19.06.2013 addressed to IRCTC

P5     - Copy of letter dated 21.07.2013 addressed to GM, IRCTC

P6     - Copy of e-mail sent by 1^st opposite party.

P7     - Copy of e-mail addressed to 1^st opposite party dated 31.08.2013.

P8     - Copy of e-mail sent by 1^st opposite party on 14.03.2014.

 

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                             NIL

 

 

                                                                                                      Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb