Delhi

North East

CC/248/2015

Niranjan Kr. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indian Railways - Opp.Party(s)

11 Jul 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 248/15

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Niranjan Kumar S/o Shri N.K.Prasad R/o B-37, 3rd Floor, Gali No.8 Shashi Garden, Mayur Vihar-1, Delhi-91.	Complainant
	Versus
	Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC) Rail Yatri Niwas Building, New Delhi Railway Station Complex Ajmeri Gate Side, New Delhi-110002.	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

14.07.2015 10.07.2018 11.07.2018

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

Ravindra Shankar Nagar, Member

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Case of the complainant is that he had booked an E-Ticket on 28^th May 2015 at 10:14 AM under Premium Tatkal Quota vide transaction ID No. 100000240377345 with OP website to travel from New Delhi to Chhapra (Bihar) in Swatantra Senani Express and the date of journey was 29.05.2015. It has been submitted by the complainant that he was allotted confirmed ticket in coach                    no. A1/24 /side upper with PNR no. 2305945784. However the complainant received a message from the OP at 08:41 PM on the date of travel booking that the train Swatantra Senani Express which was to depart on 29.05.2015 had been cancelled and the complainant will have to cancel the ticket online to get the refund. It has been further submitted by the complainant that he was having an important engagement at Chhapra (Bihar) but he had to cancel the ticket. It has been further submitted that the complainant was supposed to get the refund of the ticket price within next 2-3 working days but could not receive the refund in his account for which he contacted the customer care of Indian Railways, which intimated that it is due to technical fault of OP that such a message sent to complainant’s mobile. It has been further submitted by the complainant that he made several calls in the office of OP and wrote several e-mails for the refund of booking amount of Rs. 4,394.94 Paise and other incidental charges but the complainant did not receive the refund of the ticket amount in his account and therefore alleged deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP causing the complainant mental harassment and financial loss due to the negligence of the OP. Therefore, the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint prying for issuance of directions to OP to refund of ticket amount of Rs. 4,394.94 Paise alongwith interest @ 18% p.a.,                   Rs. 50,000/- towards mental harassment and agony and                         Rs. 25,000/- payable by the OP towards litigation charges to be paid to the complainant.

The complainant has attached a copy of Electronic Reservation Slip / E-Ticket issued in his name depicting the reservation made by him as per the details above, a copy of credit card statement dated 01.06.2015 showing an amount of Rs. 4,476.42 Paise deducted towards the IRCTC transaction for booking to and fro tickets on 22.05.2015 and 25.05.2015 with OP, copy of message / SMS dated 28.05.2015 at 20:41 hours received from OP for cancellation of train No. 12562 boarding at NDLS dated 29.05.2015 and the complainant advised to cancel the PNR No. 2305945784 online to get the refund as per railway rules and copy of e-mails exchanged between complainant and OP dated 28.05.2015, 09.06.2015 and 10.06.2015.

2. Notice under section 13 CPA 1986 dated 28.07.2015 was issued to the OP and OP entered appearance on 14.09.2015 and filed its written statement wherein the OP, while admitting to the factum of booking of E-Ticket by the complainant through its website took the preliminary objection that in view of the full refund of                     Rs. 4,350/- sanctioned as special refund already being transferred in complainant’s account on 20.07.2015, no grievance of the complainant survived and therefore the complaint was liable to be dismissed. The OP further urged that IRCTC provides internet connectivity for booking e-tickets and the ticket was cancelled as normal one but the refund could not be processed immediately as the ticket was Premium Tatkal E-ticket. However, OP took note of it and full refund of Rs. 4,350/- was sanctioned as special refund and transferred to complainant’s account. Further OP urged that the IRCTC and Indian Railways are two different entities having their exclusively different roles and working and that the delay in refund occurred due to inadvertent / unintentional technical error of the system which are sometimes unavoidable and as such OP may not be held deficient in service or construed to be indulging in unfair trade practice for a technical error which is beyond control of the person operating it. Further OP averred that the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation cost claimed by the complainant is highly exorbitant in view of ticket amount already been credited / refunded. Lastly the OP prayed before this Forum for dismissal of the present complaint.
3. Rejoinder as well as Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant wherein he reiterated his grievance and stated that the refund by OP after 53 days within any valid reason was itself deficiency of service on its part as also sending erroneous message on the mobile of the complainant.   
4. Evidence by way of affidavit on behalf of the OP was filed by its DGM/CS, IRCTC/NZ wherein it reiterated its defence of granting refund of value of ticket to the complainant.
5. Written arguments were filed by the complainant. 
6. Written arguments were also filed by the OP wherein it was stated that at the time of journey, i.e. May 2015 the Gujjar agitation was going on in Northern India and entire railway network in Northern Indian was severely affected due to the unrest and considering the safety and security of passengers, Indian Railways cancelled a number of trains on daily basis and due to such circumstances, even Indian Railways were never clear of departure of the trains from Delhi and due to heavy cancellation of trains, a lot of e-tickets (may be more than thousands) were cancelled on daily basis for which OP took caution and care to cancel E-tickets timely for refund. The OP further argued that unpredictable schedule of trains and heavy cancellation lead to unavoidable, inadvertent and unintentional technical error of the system. The alleged delay of refund is also a result of such technical error, hence IRCTC may not be held deficient in service and said to be indulged into unfair trade practice for a technical error which is beyond control of the person operating it. The SMS sent to the complainant was a system generated one. Further the OP argued that it only provides internet connectivity for booking of e-tickets whereas the management of trains is under the purview of Indian Railways and OP has no role in it. Moreover, full refund of Rs. 4,350/- was sanctioned as special refund and transferred in complainant’s account on 20.07.2015 i.e. before the present case was admitted before this Forum and hence no grievance of the complainant survived thereafter. A copy of Gazette notification No. GSR 362 (E) dated 06.06.2013 in Hindi and English version for amendment in refund rules has been attached wherein it is mentioned under Para 7 B that ‘no refund of fare shall be admissible on confirmed Tatkal Ticket’.
7. We have heard the arguments addressed by the both the parties and have also gone through the evidence submitted by both the parties in support of their contentions/ defence.

On perusal of record, it is discernable that the refund against the e-ticket booked by the complainant with OP on 28.05.2015 was given after a delay of 53 days on 20.07.2015 which to our opinion is an inordinate delay unsupported by any cogent / substantial justification by OP other than evasive tactics / lame excuses of ticket being premium Tatkal Ticket, technical glitch or Gujjar agitation which cannot be acceptable.

Keeping in view all the above factors, pleadings of the parties as well as evidence submitted by them, we are of the considered view that OP did refund the amount of Rs. 4,350/- and credited the same to complainant’s account on 20.07.2015 but after an inexplicable delay of 53 from the date of booking till the date of crediting the amount to the complainant’s account. The OP has submitted reasons for the inordinate delay, which we do not find any force or merit in.

8. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has established the deficiency in service on the part of OP for delay in refund and erroneous train cancellation message sent on complainant’s mobile and therefore we direct the OP to compensate the complainant for an amount of Rs. 4,000/- and also to pay an amount of Rs. 3,000/- towards litigation charges to the complainant payable by the OP within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which interest @ 9% p.a. on the total amount of Rs. 7,000/- shall be payable by the OP to the complainant from the date of order till the date of realization.
9.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
10.   File be consigned to record room.
11.   Announced on  11.07.2018

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member

(Ravindra Shankar Nagar) Member