CC No.1750.2014

Filed on 15.10.2014

Disposed on 05.07.2016

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BANGALORE – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE5^thDAY OF JULY2016

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.1750/2014

PRESENT:

Sri.H.S.RAMAKRISHNA, B.Sc., LL.B.

                                PRESIDENT

               Smt.L.Mamatha, B.A., (Law), LL.B.

                             MEMBER

                                              V/S

ORDER

BY SRI.H.S.RAMAKRISHNA, PRESIDENT

1.        This Complaint was filed by the Complainant on 15.10.2014and praying to pass an Order directing the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.11,400/- towards compensationand other reliefs.  

2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under:

In the Complaint, the Complainant is a regular consumer of Indian Railways for his various transportation needs.  For most of these travels.  He use the online ticket booking platform provided by IRCTC, for which services charges are levied.   Cancellation and Refunds for the tickets booked through IRCTC are applied in their website and IRCTC interacts with necessary departments within Indian Railways for processing the same.   This complaint is towards non-refund of ticket cancellation amount by IRCTC.  The details of the tickets on which the refund was not adequately processed are as below:

As per the rules of Railways, if a train is running late by more than 3 hours, the passenger is eligible for full refund of the ticket cost.  The train in which he had booked his ticket-19224 (Jammu Tawi-Ahmedabad Express) was delayed by more than 3 hours from its scheduled departure time in arriving at JU (Jodhpur Jn).   On applying for refund in IRCTC website through the Ticket Deposit Receipt (TDR) route, I was refunded only 50% of the ticket cost considering it as a normal cancellation post departure of train.  Evidence for the train running late by more than 3 hours is established by the fact that the other ticket booked in Third AC class for the same train and same date (TDR reference ekt2011011102005463, PNR 2644003423, IRCTC transaction id 0291948825) was processed for 100% refund.   The complainant had booked two tickets in the same train due to the high waitlist quese in the train and he had to ensure confirmed reservation as he was travelling with family.   With all multiple attempts in contacting IRCTC over the past 3.5 years not being useful in getting the refund, The complainant booked ticket in train No.16527 (YesvantpurJn-Cannanore Express) for 3 passengers for himself, the complainant wife and his son, date of journey:29.11.2013, from YesvantpurJn to PodanurJn in Second AC sleeper ticket was confirmed at the time of charting, the other 2 passengers were still in Waitlist.   The waitlisted passengers in this e-ticket were not automatically cancelled since it was a part confirmation of e-ticket.   Considering the difficulty involved in taking our 6 years old son in such a ticket, they decided to leave her son behind at home.   Whilst in the train, the waitlist of other passenger also got confirmed and hence, his wife and himself were able to travel in the AC sleeper berths and claimed for refund of his son’s ticket fare through the online TDR (Ticket Deposit Receipt) option, since his ticket was not confirmed and he did not travel as well.   However, IRCTC and the Railways rejected his claim citing various reasons such as “Delay in online TDR filing’TDR filed after 30 days”, though the TDR was filed the very next day itself, in less than 24 hours.  In case on a party e-ticket or a family e-ticket issued for travel of more than one person, some persons have confirmed reservation and others are on the list of RAC and waiting list, then in case of passengers on RAC or waitlisted not travelling, a certificate has to be obtained from the ticket checking staff to that effect and refund of fare shall be processed online through TDR, indicating the details of the certificate issued by ticket checking staff. The online TDR shall be filed upto seventy two hours of actual arrival of the train at passenger’s destination and the original certificate issued by the ticket checking staff is to be sent through post to Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC).  The fare shall be refunded by Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC) to the customer’s account after due verification.   When he applied for refund, the Railways could have rejected by mentioning the non-production of the certificate from the Ticket checking staff.    Rather, the reason quoted is “Delay in online TDR filing/TDR filed after 30 days”, which makes it very clear that the Railways administration is trying to confuse the customer with an incorrect response as to avoid the refund.  The complainant booking a Second sleeper class ticket in train 12657 (Bangalore Mail), from Chennai Central to Bangalore for travel on 25.06.2014.  The ticket was in RAC during charting and he couldn’t get a confirmed berth even during the train.    In spite of paying the full fare applicable for a sleeper class, he had to sit and travel the entire journey overnight.   On top of all these, he was forced to pay the difference of fare on account of fare increase as well. On filing TDR for non-confirmation of his sleeper class ticket, He got a reply stating that ‘Failed to collect TDR/TTE Certificate/GC’.   When the railways themselves possess the information in their chart that he was not given a berth,   but travelled on RAC ticket, this requirement is not valid.   Even in many such earlier occasions, his TDR based refund claims for RACT tickets not confirmed during travel were only regretted by the Railways.   The Railways in not refunding the RAC tickets not confirmed during journey and hence, there is a deficiency of service by the Railway.   Hence, this complaint. 

3.      In response to the notice, even though notice was served on the Opposite Parties, but Opposite Parties 2 to 4remained absent placed ex-parte.  The Opposite Party No.1 put their appearance through their counsel. In the version, it is pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The complainant has very clearly and categorically stated in the complaint that his grievance is only against the Railways and has cast allegations with regard to the deficiency of service on the Opposite Parties 2 to 4 in this complaint and has also given his personal opinion of the Policies of the Railways and has not leveled any allegations against the Opposite Party No.1.Hence, this Opposite Party prays that this Hon’ble Forum be pleased to dismiss this complaint against the Opposite Party No.1.  The Opposite Party No.1 submits that IRCTC only provides access to Railway Passenger Reservation System through its server and internet connectivity to book tickets through it.   When the user/passenger books railway tickets through IRCTC the amount will be transferred to the Railways and similarly when the refund/regret advise sent by the concerned Railways (as per the Extant Railway Board’s Refund Rules), the said amount/advise will be made available to the user through which booking was made.   The User/Passenger applied for refund to Chief Commercial Manager of concerned Railways (Refunds) who will be the final deciding authority.   This fact is well within the knowledge of the complainant.   The User/Passengers who book the tickets online are expected to read the manual which they are bound by him.   It appears that the complainant has read the manual, there has been no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1   The complainant has filed this complaint with regard to PNR 2315070087Date of Journey 10^th January 2011 Ex Jodhpur Jn to Ahmedabad Jn in Sleeper Class by Train No.19224 dt.10.01.2011 on payment of Rs.400/- as fare of the ticket.   The complainant got a 50% refund from the Railways on this PNR.   The refund due is Rs.200/- as the train was late more than 3 hours and the passengers had not travelled.   On the request of the complainant, the Opposite Party No.1 reopened the case and requested the Chief Commercial Manager/Refund, Western Railway to process the remaining refund amount but it was regretted by the Chief Commercial Manager/Refund, Western Railway.  The Opposite Party No.1 humbly submits that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 and the cause of action did not arise on account of the Opposite Party No.1.  The complainant had also filed a PNR No.2644003423 of 3 AC class of a train on the same date of journey, same leg and for the same passengers and the User has got full refund of ticket of Rs.1062/- which is also admitted in the complaint.   The complainant had also filed PNR No.4157629509 for an E-ticket Ex Yesvanthpur to PodanurJn in 2 AC Class by Train No.16527 of date 29.11.2013 on payment of Rs.2255/- and had filed a TDR on 30.11.2013 for refund of the fare.  The same regretted by the Railways as there was a delay in filing online.  On the request of the user/complainant, IRCTC reopened the case and forwarded to theChief Commercial manager/Refund who regretted the refund for wrong reasons.   There is no deficiency of service on thepart of the Opposite Party No.1.   The complainant had booked Ex Chennai Central to Bangalore City in the Sleeper Class by Train 12657 on payment of Rs.230/-.   The Opposite Parties 2 to 4 have regretted the refund against PNR No.4817478101 as he “failed to collect TDR/TTE Certificate.   There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1.   Hence, the Opposite Party prays for dismissal of the complaint against Opposite Party No1.

4.      The Complainant Gowrishankar S filed his affidavit by way of evidence and closed his side. For the Opposite Party one Vijaya Doss, Managerof the Opposite Party has filed his affidavit by way of evidence.   Heard the arguments of both the parties.  

5.      The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the Complainant has proved the alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties?
2. If so, to what relief the Complainant is entitled?

6.      Our findings on the above points are:-

                   POINT (1):-Negative

                   POINT (2):-As per the final Order

REASONS

7.      POINT NOs. 1& 2:-It is the case of the complainant, the complainant had booked a ticket in train No.19224, Sleeper Class from Jammu Tawi-Ahmedabad Express and Jodhpur Jn to Ahmedabad.   At the date of journey is on 10.01.2011 and PNR No.2315070087.   As per the rules of Railways, if the train is running late by more than 3 hours, the passenger is eligible for full refund of the ticket cost.   The train in which, he had booked his ticket was delayed by more than 3 hours from its scheduled departure time in arriving at JU(Jodhpur Jn).   On applying for refund in IRCTC website through the Ticket Deposit Receipt.   The Opposite Partiesrefunded only 50% of the ticket cost considering it as a normal cancellation post departure of train.   For the train running late by more than 3 hours is established by the fact that is another ticket booked in the 3^rd AC class for the same train and same date was processed for 100% refund and he had booked two tickets in the same train due to the high waitlist queue in the train.   This fact is not been denied by the Opposite Parties.  Further to substantiate this contention, the complainant in his sworn testimony, reiterated the same.   This evidence is also remains unchallenged.   Therefore, there is no contra evidence to discard the testimony of the complainant.   Therefore, it is proper to accept the contention of the complainant.  The complainant had purchased the ticket to travel from Jodhpur Junction to Ahmadabad in train No.19224 Jammu Tawi-Ahmedabad Express and the said train was delayed by more than 3 hours from its departure time.

8. The defence of the Opposite Parties is that, the complainant has filed this complaint with regard to PNR No.2315070087 date of Journey 10^th January 2011 Ex Jodhpur Jn to Ahmedabad Jn in Sleeper Class by Train No.19224 dt.10.01.2011 on payment of Rs.400/- as fare of the ticket.   The complainant got a 50% refund from the Railways on this PNR.   The refund due is Rs.200/- as the train was late more than 3 hours and the passengers had not travelled.   On the request of the complainant, the Opposite Party No.1 requested the Chief Commercial Manager/Refund, Western Railway to process the remaining refund amount, but it was regretted by the Chief Commercial Manager/Refund, Western Railway.   In support of this,Vijaya Doss, Manager, IRCTC Bangalore Regional Office, reported the same and also learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties argued that the complainant is not entitled for the said claim.  Since even according to the complainant,the date of journey is 10.01.2011 apart from that the complainant received 50% refund of amount i.e., 200/- due of total amount of Rs.400/- and thereby the said claim is barred by time.   Under the provision of the Consumer dispute act the complaint ought to have filed within 2 years from the date of cause of action, thereby the complainant is not entitled for the said claim.   As looking into the evidence,   the complainant has stated earlier it is undisputed fact that the complainant had booked ticket in train No.19224, Sleeper Class from Jammu Tawi-Ahmedabad Express from Jodhpur Jn to Ahmedabad and travelling date is on 10.01.2011.   After lapse of more than 2 years i.e., on 15.10.2014, the complainant filed this complaint for refund of remaining amount of 50% of the ticket value.   Seciton-24A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 it is hereunder.  

Section-24A(1) complaint ought to have file the complaint within 2 years from the date of cause of action.   But the present case, the complainant filed this complaint after lapse of more than 2 years and also he had not filed any application for condoning the delay, thereby the presentcomplaintfiled by the complainant is barred by time.  As argued by the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1, thereby the complainant is not entitled for claiming 50% refund of the ticket amount.

9. It is further case of the complainant, the complainant had booked the ticket in train No.16527YesvantpurJn-Cannanore Express for 3 passengers his wife and son, date of journey 29.11.2013, from YesvantpurJn to PodanurJn in Second AC sleeper.   While his wife’s ticket was confirmed at the time of charting, the other 2 passengers were still in Waitlist.   The waitlisted passengers in this e-ticket were not automatically cancelled since it was a part confirmation of e-ticket.   Considering the difficulty involved in taking their 6 year old son in such a ticket, they decided to leave their son at home.   Whilst in the train, the waitlist of other passenger also got confirmed and hence, his wife and himself able to travel in the AC sleeper berths and he had claimed for refund of his son’s ticket fare through the online TDR option, since his ticket was not confirmed and he didn’t travel as well.   However, IRCTC and the Railways rejected his claim citing various reasons such as “Delay in online TDR filing/TDER filed after 30 days”, though the TDR was filed the very next day itself, in less than 24 hours. To substantiate this fact, the complainant in his sworn testimony, reiterated the same.   In support of this case, the complainanthad produced the e-ticket correspondence. As looking into this ticket, the complainant had requested the Railway for refund of the amount of ticket value booked of his son.  On the ground that the complainant’s son hadnot travelled on that day.   But the Railways have clearly informed the complainant to produce the original TTE Certificate/GC issued against PNR No.4157629509. In absence of the Original Certificates, refund cannot be processed.  In spite of that, the complainant has not produced the TTE Certificate for that reason only, Opposite Parties have not process for refund ticket amount of the complainant’s son.   The complainant argued before us, in case on a party e-ticket or a family e-ticket issued for travel of more than one person, some persons have confirmed reservation and others are on the list of RAC and waiting list, then in case of passengers on RAC or waitlisted not travelling, a certificate has to be obtained from the ticket checking staff to that effect and refund of fare shall be processed online through TDER, indicating the details of the certificate issued by ticket checking staff.  The online TDR shall be filed upto seventy two hours of actual arrival of the train at passenger’s destination and the original certificate issued by the ticket checking staff is to be sent through post to Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC).  The fare shall be refunded by Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC) to the customer’s account after due verification.  But in support of this argument, the complainant had not placed any evidence to show that the complainant had produced the TTE Certificate along with TDR.  Even though,the RailwayDepartment for requested the complainant to produce the original TTE Certificate.   For that reason only, the Railway Authorities have faced to process the refund of claim of the complainant.   Thereby, there is no deficiency of service on thepart of the Opposite Parties.   Hence, it is not proper to accept the argument of the complainant that there is deficiency of service on the partOpposite Parties for non-refunding of ticket amount of his son, who is not travel on that day.

10. It is further case of the complainant, the complainant had booked a Second sleeperticket in train No.12657Bangalore Mail, from Chennai Central to Bangalore for travel on 25.06.2014.   The ticket was in RAC during charting and he couldn’t get a confirmed berth even during the train.   In spite of paying the full fare applicable for a sleeper class, he had to sit and travel the entire journey overnight.   On top of all these, he was forced to pay the difference of fare on account of fare increase as well.   On filing TDR for non-confirmation of his sleeper class ticket.   Even to substantiate this fact also, the complainant in his sworn testimony, reiterated the same.  Except hisinterested version of the complainant, the complainant had not placed any supporting evidence.  Thereby, the complainant failed to prove that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.  Hence, this point is held in the Negative.   In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The Complaint isdismissed.  No costs.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this, 5^thday of July 2016)

L.MAMATHA                             H.S.RAMAKRISHNA

MEMBER                             PRESIDENT

LIST OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS

Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant:

1. Gowrishankar S, who being Complainant has filed his affidavit.

List of documents filed by the Complainant:

1. Mails from IRCTC denying refund on online TDRs-8 pages
2. Consumer Forum Judgement on refund of WL ticket-1 page
3. Postal Acknowledgements.

Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

1. Vijaya Doss,has filed his affidavit Evidence on behalf ofthe Opposite Parties.

List of documents filed by the Opposite Parties:

1. Copy of the IRCTC letter dt.11.08.2015

MEMBER                                                      PRESIDENT