Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/148/2023

Bhartendu Sood - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

10 Jul 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/148/2023
Date of Institution	:	17.3.2023
Date of Decision	:	10/07/2024

 

1.       BhartenduSood, S/o Late Shri BhupinderNath, age 70, Residing at 231      Sector-45-A, Chandigarh.

2.       NeelaSood w/o BhartenduSood age 66, Residing at 231 Sector-45-A, Chandigarh.

COMPLAINANTS

Versus

 

1.       Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation SCO 80-82, 3rd Floor, Sector 34-A, behind Piccadilly Cinemas, Chandigarh, 160022

2.       Indian Railways through the Railway Station Manager, Railway Station, Chandigarh.

OPPOSITE PARTIES

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Bhartendu Sood, complainant No.1 in person being authorized representative of complainant No.2
	:	Sh. Saksham Arora,  Advocate for OP No.1
	:	Sh. Paramjit Singh Rana, Advocate for OP No.2 (through VC)

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 34-35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OPs). The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint thaton 29.11.2022, the complainants booked two railway tickets for their journey through OP No.1 from Gurgaon (GGN) to Chandigarh  on 13.12.2022 on payment of ₹477.70 and the copy of electronic reservation slip  is annexed as Annexure C-1. However, when the complainants were at boarding station,  they received a message  on their registered mobile number that due to technical reason, the subject train  will not touch their station GGN on 13.12.2022.  After receiving the said message, the complainants  had to cancel their plan to travel through train  and took bus on the same day for the destination to Chandigarh. After a week, the complainants sent a email to OP No.1  for the refund of the ticket amount but the complainantswere informed that refund cannot be made as the complainant had not applied within 72 hours at boarding station.  As the complainants were senior citizens, it was not feasible for them to apply for refund at boarding station GGN. On this the complainants had rushed to Chandigarh by bus  after  receiving message from the OPs. In this manner, theaforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP No.1in its  short reply  admitted booking of the tickets by  the answering OP for 13.12.2022  from Gurgaon(GGN) to Chandigarh. It is averred that the answering OP only provides access  to Railway Passenger Reservation System (PRS) through its server and internet connectivity to book the ticket through its website and as soon as the ticket is issued from the answering OP and fare is transferred to the railway,the answering OP has no role to play thereafter. It is alleged that  on thediversion of trains, the answering OP has no role to play  as the same are diverted by the OP No.2. On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been re-iterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. OP No.2 in its reply alleged that the answering OP  has no concern with the issue raised in the complaint as the prayer of the complainant is only against OP No.1 and complaint be dismissed qua the answering OP being not maintainable.
4. In rejoinder, complainant reiterated  the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that  the complainant booked two  railway tickets from OP No.1 for traveling from Gurgaon to Chandigarh on 13.12.2022   and they received a message from OPs that   the train in which the complainants were to travel will not touch the station  at Gurgaon on 13.12.2022 as a result of which the complainants were compelled to travel from Gurgaon to Chandigarh by bus, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the aforesaid act of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for or if the complaint being not maintainable is liable to be dismissed as is the defence of the OPs.
   2. As the defence of the OPs is that the  complaint is not maintainable against them  and as in its written version the OP No.1 has alleged that if there is any liability  i.e. on the part of OP No.2 and at the same time OP No.2 has come with the defence that the complaint is not maintainable against it as the complainants are seeking relief against the OP No.1,  it is to be determined if the complaint is maintainable against OP No.1 or OP No.2 or against both of them. It is not disputed by the OPs  that the subject train did not touch the station on 13.12.2022 at Gurgaon  and a message to this effect was sent to the complainants by the OPs and the complainants were compelled to perform their journey from Gurgaon to Chandigarh by bus, which caused a lot of mental agony and physical harassment to the complainants.
   3. Perusal of Annexure C-1 the Electronic Reservation Slip clearly indicates that OP No.1 has charged IRCTC Convenience fee  to the tune of ₹17.70 from the complainant for booking the subject ticket  and OP No.2 charged ticket fare of ₹460 from the complainant. Thus, it stands proved on record that complainants have paid total amount of ₹477.70 to both the OPs for availing their service for  travelling from Gurgaon to Chandigarh  on the relevant date, time and place. Moreover, it is an admitted case of the parties that the  train did not touch the station at Gurgaon on the relevant date and time  as a result of which the complainants had to travel from Gurgaon to Chandigarh by bus  which caused immense harassment to them, hence both the OPs No.1&2 cannot escape from their liability, and the aforesaid act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part, especially when the entire case set up by the complainant in the consumer complaint as well as the evidence available on record is unrebutted by the OPs. Hence, the instant consumer complaint deserves to be allowed.
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 refund ₹477.70 to the complainants alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from 13.12.2022 till onwards.
2. to pay composite amount of ₹10,000/- to the complainants as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and towards costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OPs jointly and severally within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, instead of 9% [mentioned at Sr.No.(i)], till realisation.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 10/07/2024 mp			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member