3)        According to the Complainant, she had booked e-ticket from the Opposite Party from Ghaziabad to Lucknow on 24/08/2011 for her journey dtd.22/11/2011 of the Train No.12004 Lucknow Swarna Shatabdi for herself and her husband Ashok Bhargava vide PNR No.21247663364.  The said ticket was booked by her daughter Mrs. Tripti Srimat Bhargava at Mumbai through e-mail simitbhargava@yahoo.com.  The required railway fair of Rs.765/- for both the tickets was paid through the Account No.03860100009402 of Bank of Baroda Borivali (E) Branch, which belongs to her parents i.e. Ashok Bhargava and the Complainant.  The copy of the e-ticket is filed as document no.1 with the complaint.  According to the Complainant, the said train was cancelled due to fog and no alternative arrangement was made by the Indian Railways for the said journey of the Complainant and for her husband.  According to the Complainant, as the said train was cancelled the amount of Rs.745/- was required to be refunded by the Opposite Party, however, the Opposite Party did not refund the said amount to the account of the Complainant and her husband.  The Complainant has therefore, filed the present complaint. 

 4)        The Opposite Party contested the claim by written statement on various grounds.  It is denied that the Complainant is consumer of Opposite Party. It is contended that the amount was paid from the account of Tripti Bhargava, the Complainant is not consumer of the Opposite Party. It is contended that the cancelation of railway ticket and refund of fairs is to be done by Chief Commercial Managers (Refund) of the Indian Railways under Indian Railway Act hence, the Opposite Party is not liable for the claim made in the Complainant.  It is contended that the Opposite Party is the Government of India enterprises.  The Opposite Party is only booking agent of Indian Railways.  It only issues ticket on behalf of the Indian Railways.  The fair charge as shown in the ticket is transferred to the Indian Railways.  Running of trains, cancellations of trains and refund of ticket is under the control of Indian Railways.  The Opposite Party has no roll for deciding the refund as it is decided by the Indian Railways.  It is submitted that on receipt of refund amount from the Indian Railways it is credited to the account of the customer through payment gateway.  It is contended that in of cancellation of ticket the Indian Railways Rules apply which contained limitations and exclusions relating to the liability to the customer in respect of loss or damage caused by cancellation of any train. The Opposite Party relied the terms and conditions set forth on website.  The copy of which is marked as Exh.‘1’. The Opposite Party has also relied the Refund Rules Cancellations of tickets and fair. The copy of which is marked as Exh.‘2’. It is contended that if the train is marked as ‘cancelled’ in passengers reservation system full refund is permissible in case the e-ticket is cancelled within 72 of the schedule departure of the train through internet.  It is contended that e-ticket refund request can be find online.  Users can use online ticket receipt filing and status tracking service provided by the Opposite Party. Opposite Party will forward the claim to the concerned railway 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.  The Opposite Party relied Exh.‘3’ & ‘4’ i.e. copies of the procedure of cancellation of ‘E-tickets’ and ‘Refund Rules’.  It is contended that prior to booking ticket one Tripti Bhargava had registered herself on the website of the Opposite Party through internet as “User” at that time she had submitted her User Id as “simitripti” and her e-mail Id “simitbhargava@yahoo.com”.  It is contended that she had also noted her residential address of New Delhi and consulted to the terms and conditions of service agreement in electronic form.  The User has not changed her User Id and e-mail Id since then.  The copy of the printout of the Complainant’s User Id is marked with Opposite Party as Exh.‘6”.   It is not disputed that the Complainant and her husband booked ticket on 24/08/2011 from the Opposite Party as per the document No.1 filed with the complaint.  The Opposite Party has also filed the copy of the same.  It is contended that on 31/12/2011 i.e. after 40 days of the schedule departure of the train the Complainant passenger sent an e-mail from an unregistered e-mail address. (ranjana.nadu@gmail.com) to wrong e-mail address of the Opposite Party (care@irctc.co.in) demanding refund of Rs.745/-. It is contended that the Complainant is not registered user of Opposite Party.  It is contended that the Complainant did not sent e-mail on correct address for the cancellation of the e-tickets i.e. “e-tickets@ irctc.co.in.  It is contended that on 02/01/2012 the Opposite Party from the e-mail address care@ircts.co.in replied to the Complainant at her unregistered (ranjana.nadu@gmail.com that her e-mail dtd.31/12/2011 has been forwarded to the concerned department.  The copy of which is marked as Exh.‘E’.  It is contended that on the same date the Opposite Party from the e-mail address  e-tickets@ irctc.co.in replied to the Complainant at her unregistered e-mail address to send her e-mail from the same. E-mail Id simitbhargava@yahoo.com which is mentioned in the user Id profile of the Opposite Party, so as to verify the authenticity of the e-mail. Else, she can send her profile details such as name, residential address, date of birth, Phone Number.  It is contended that on the same day the Complainant rejoined at 8.33 p.a. from the unregistered e-mail address referred above giving the names of the passengers, her residential address, date of birth of passengers and her telephone number which were completely different from the user’s profile details with Opposite Party.  The copies of it are marked as Exh.‘10’ & ‘11’.  It is contended that again on 03/02/2012 the Complainant sent a reminder e-mail at e-mail address care@ircts.co.in of the Opposite Party for refund of amount.  On the same day the Opposite Party replied that e-mail address of the Opposite Party for cancellation of     e-tickets online for e-ticket TDR filing online is e-tickets@ irctc.co.in. and the Complainant was also advised to send her request for cancellation of TDR filing from the registered e-mail Id of the User (the same e-mail Id which the User mentioned in her profile).  Otherwise the Opposite Party will not be able to attend the Complainant’s request.  It is contended that it was also informed that the User has to find TDR within 30 days and the case will not be forwarded to the Railways. The copies of the said communication dtd.03/02/2012 are at Exh.‘12’ & ‘13’.  It is contended that the User and the Complainant passenger are different individual.  The authenticity of e-mails sent by the Complainant are suspect, hence, they are not acted upon.  Registered user of the Opposite Party has never asked the e-tickets cancelled.  The refund cannot be given to the Complainant who is different from the user.  It is submitted that the Complainant cannot take advantage of her own wrong and breach of rules cannot be allowed.  The Opposite Party cannot be saddled with any liability arising out of mistake/negligence committed by the Complainant. It is thus, submitted that the Complainant be dismissed.     

 5)        The Complainant has filed affidavit of herself and the affidavit of Mrs.Tripti Simit Bhargava who had booked the reservation at Mumbai from Ghaziabad to Lucknow in A/C Chair Car by Train No.12004 in the name of the Complainant and her father Ashok Bhargava through her e-mail Id simitbhargava@yahoo.com.  The Opposite Party has filed affidavit of evidence of Rahul Himalian.  Both the parties filed their written arguments.  We heard the oral arguments of Complainant herself and the Ld.Advocate Uttamchand for the Opposite Party. 

6)        While considering the claim made by the Complainant it is undisputed that the Train No.12004/LKO SWAR SHTDB dtd.22/11/2011 for which the Complainant and her husband had booked their tickets vide PNR No.2124763364 was cancelled by the Railway Authorities and the Complainant and her husband could not travel as proposed by the said train. According to the Complainant, she sent e-mail dtd.03/12/2011 to care@irctc.co.in and claimed refund of Rs.745/- for the aforesaid  e-ticket.  It is her case that as she did not receive any communication till 30/12/2011 then again on 30/12/2011 she sent e-mail at the above e-mail address and claimed refund. To the said e-mail of the Complainant the Opposite Party informed to the Complainant that “Please send us e-mail from that e-mail Id (simitbhargava@yahoo.com.) which is mentioned in your Id profile of IRCTC so that we can verify the authenticity of the e-mail.  If you are unable to send mail from registered email Id then please send us your profile details, such as Name, Residence Address, Date of Birth, Phone No., so that we can assist you better.” (copy of that     e-mail is document no.3 to the complaint).  The Complainant replied to the said e-mail on the same date 02/01/2012 giving the details of her address, date of birth of her husband as 09/04/46 and of herself 01/12/49 and Phone No. (vide document no.4 to the Complainant). The Opposite Party again replied to the Complainant vide document no.5 “we would like to inform you that your below enclosed e-mail has been forwarded to the concerned department. You will receive a reply in this regard.”  It appears that thereafter the Opposite Party did not give any favourable reply and refund the amount of the cancelled train to the Bank Account of the Complainant and her husband from which the amount was paid to the Opposite Party for the above referred ticket.  The Opposite Party on the other hand in their written statement  have come out with the rules as regards refund for cancellation of ticket.  The Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Party has also much relied on the said rules and submitted that as there were differences between the details given by the Complainant.  in her e-mail dtd.02/01/2012 and the User in her profile dtd.24/08/2011 which are specifically mentioned in written statement in tabular form of para ix(n).  In our view the objections which are raised by the Opposite Party for non refund of the ticket amount are devoid of merits.  As per the documents at Exh.‘3’ filed with written statement which at page 47.  The rule regarding cancellation of e-ticket in case of trains cancelled it is mentioned as “if the train is marked as “cancelled” in PRS due to breaches, floods, accidents, etc. full refund is permissible in case the ticket is cancelled within 3 days of the schedule departure of the train.  In case of e-tickets, such cancellation can be done by the customer through internet.”  In our view, if the said rule would be taken into consideration it appears that the tickets which are booked from the railway window require to be cancelled within 3 days of the schedule departure of the cancelled train.  The said rule as underlined above does not speak that e-tickets are also required to be cancelled within 3 days of the schedule departure of the cancelled train.  The said rules also do not say that the e-tickets are require to be cancelled by the User i.e. by the same person who sent e-mail from his e-mail Id which is mentioned in the User Id of IRTCTC. On the other hand as per the aforesaid rules such cancellation can be done in case of e-tickets by the customer through internet.  In the present case the Complainant and her husband are the customers of the Opposite Party.  Therefore, in our view the contentions raised by the Opposite Party that the Complainant had not requested to cancel the e-ticket referred above within 3 days of the departure of the cancelled train or within 30 days from the date of journey and the request was not made for refund of the amount by the User or the person who had booked the ticket i.e. the daughter of the Complainant through her e-mail are devoid of merits.  It is also pertinent to note that the Opposite Party in response to the e-mails sent by the Complainant had called for the required information from the Complainant vide document no.3 by informing the Complainant that if she is unable to send mail from registered e-mail Id then send the information regarding her profile details such as Names Residence Address, Date of Birth, Phone Number with a view to assist the Complainant.  The Complainant vide document no.4 had complied the said requirements to the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party had also informed the Complainant that her e-mail has been forwarded to the concerned department and she will receive reply in that regard shortly.  If these documents placed on record are taken into consideration it appears that the formalities which were required by the Opposite Party for refund of ticket amount to the Complainant appears to have been completed by the Complainant, however, the Opposite Party failed to refund the amount to the user of e-mail Id for the Complainant or to the Complainant’s Bank Account which can be termed as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party.  The submission made by the Complainant that when a waitlisted ticket is not confirm and the train has left the station the Opposite Party does the refund automatically and the same is deposited to the account of the User and in the same manner if the train is cancelled the refund should be made immediately to the concerned bank account from which the payment has been made as per the information given to the Opposite Party at the time of booking of e-ticket has also much substance.  We therefore, hold that as the Complainant being customer of the Opposite Party in respect of the e-ticket in question and she had complied the required formalities for cancellation of the said ticket in view of the cancelled train through internet and also complied with the required information called by the Opposite Party.  Thus, the claim made by the Complainant for refund of the ticket amount from the Opposite Party is justifiable and legal.  The Opposite Party in our view is therefore, liable to pay an amount of Rs.765/- (including service charge) to the Complainant due to cancellation of the train for which the Complainant had booked the journey ticket dtd.22/11/2011 for herself and her husband as the Opposite Party failed to provide the said service to them. In our view as the Opposite Party failed to refund the ticket amount to the Complainant it can be termed as the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party.  In our view thereby the Complainant has suffered mental agony and required to file this complaint for her legal entitlement of refund of amount which was required to be credited to the bank account of the Complainant and her husband as the train was cancelled.  The Opposite Party is therefore, liable to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant. In our view the Complainant is also entitled for cost of Rs.1,000/- towards this proceedings. We hold that the submissions made by the Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Party are not acceptable and the cases relied by him reported in AIR 1999 SC 80 and 2009 (2) All MR (Journal) 27 are not applicable to the facts of this case.  In the result the following order is passed -

                                                                                                 O R D E R

i.                    Complaint No.91/2012 is partly allowed against the Opposite Party.

ii.                 The Opposite Party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.765/- (Rs.Seven Hundred Sixty Five Only) towards refund of e-ticket to the Complainant.   

iii.               The Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand Only) as compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by which the Complainant has suffered mental agony.

iv.               The Opposite Party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rs.One Thousand Only) towards the cost of this proceeding to the Complainant. 

v.                  The Opposite Party is directed to comply the aforesaid order within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

vi.               Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.