Haryana

Panchkula

CC/35/2018

LT.COL(Retd)MANDEEP SINGH DHILLON - Complainant(s)

Versus

IRCTC (INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING AND TOURISM CORPORATION LTD) - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON

25 Feb 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,PANCHKULA                                                                                                                           

Consumer Compliant No.	:	35 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	16.02.2018
Date of Decision	:	25.02.2019

 

Lt Col (Retd) Mandeep Singh Dhillon & Mrs Jatinder Kaur Dhillon, R/o # 462, Sector 2, Panchkula, Haryana.                                                                                                                            

  ....Complainants

                                           Versus

 IRCTC (Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd) B-148, 11^th Floor, Statesman House, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001.

                                                                                                                                                                        ....Opposite Party

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:              Mr.Satpal, President.

Mr.Jagmohan Singh, Member.

Ms. Ruby Sharma, Member.

 

For the Parties:       Complainant in person.

                             Mr. Satyawan Ahlawat, Advocate for OP.

.  

                                                  ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.     The present complaint has been filed by the complainant against the OP with the grievances that on 12.10.2017, the complainants had booked tickets with Indian Railways online through OP (IRCTC) on train No.19717 Jaipur Chandigarh Intercity express for self and wife in AC 2 Tier for an amount of Rs.2590/- via net banking to IRCTC. Seats were confirmed and they were allotted berths No.25 and 27 in A1 coach and journey was to be performed on 18.12.2017. On 17.12.2017, complainant along with his wife went to the railway station for checking the exact timing of the train as the same was not mentioned in the reservation message but were shocked to know that the said train had been cancelled. On further checking it was found that the train was cancelled w.e.f. 01.12.2017. The railways or IRCTC did not inform the complainant of the cancellation of train and they were left stranded without any reservation. The intimation by IRCTC about cancellation was sent on 19.12.2017 via a message after the scheduled departure time of the train. The IRCTC or Railways made no alternate arrangements to transport us to our home station. Being confirmed passengers and having accepted payments from us, it is felt that it was the duty of the IRCTC to have informed us when the train was cancelled so we could make alternate arrangements. Further stated that their evening thereafter was in a spin as we started searching for alternate means of reaching back home. After tremendous hassle and stress they were able to book their tickets at 11:35 PM in the night. Since, we could not stay in an outstation for longer time, they booked their tickets in the only available flight from Jaipur to Chandigarh via Jet Airways flight number 9W2262 and paid an amount of Rs.10560/- by net banking. Due to the schedule of the flight they had to leave early morning at 06:00 am and had to cancel their trip schedule on 19.12.2017 morning and afternoon; this act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service on its part. Hence, this complaint.

2.     Upon notice OP appeared and filed the written statement taking some preliminary objections and disputed the maintainability of the complaint on the ground of misjoinder and nonjoinder of necessary party and territorial jurisdiction.  It has been stated that the no cause of action has arisen against the OP; the complaint is not maintainable as the grievance of the complainant is maintainable only against Railways as the matter pertains to operation of train which is solely under the purview of railways and IRCTC has nothing to do with the same, thus, the OP may be deleted from the list of parties U/o 1 Rule 10 CPC; that the complaint is bad for misjoinder and nonjoinder of necessary party as the complainant has not arrayed Chief Commercial Manager, Northern Railway, who is necessary party in the present complaint. The IRCTC and India Railways are two different entities where role of IRCTC is limited to the provision of the internet access to Railway Passenger Reservation System through its server and internet connectivity to book e-ticked through it. IRCTC is never aware of any change in train operation like train late, train cancellation etc. as the same come under the purview of Indian Railway, hence no cause of action has arisen against OP (IRCTC); this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as the Railway Claims Tribunal is the right forum for addressing the grievance of the complainant. As per Section 13-a and Section 15 of Railway Claim Tribunal, 1987, the jurisdiction of this Forum is barred.

        On merits, it is denied that it was the duty of OP (IRCTC) to inform the complainant or to make alternate arrangement to transport. IRCTC is never aware of any change in train operation like train late, train cancellation etc. as the same come under the purview of Indian Railway. Further denied that the complainant spent a sleepless night on December 2017 due to any fault on the part of IRCTC. Further denied that IRCTC is liable to compensate the complainant and his wife for the amount as prayed by the complainant as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.     The complainant filed replication on 14.05.2018 controverting the version of the OP. It has been stated that the complainant had booked the tickets with IRCTC and paid money to IRCTC and the refund of money was also made by IRCTC. It is further stated that his all details including mobile number, name, bank details etc. were available with IRCTC and not railways. It is further averred that IRCTC cannot wash of its hands stating that its role is limited to the provision of internet access to the reservation system of the railways. It has been alleged that IRCTC is a service provider and collecting money from the consumers and it is at par with other service providers like OLA, UBER, OYO Rooms and Makemy Trip etc. As per annual report of IRCTC for the year 2016-17, it is a public sector enterprise under the Ministry of Railways and it is a profit making enterprise having the profit to the tune of Rs.211.71 crore in the year 2016-17. Further, the version contained in the complaint has been reiterated while controverting the version of the OP as contained in the written statement. 

4.     To prove his case, the complainant has tendered the affidavit Annexure CA alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-7 in his evidence and closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel of the OP has tendered affidavit Annexure RA and closed the evidence.

5.     We have heard both the parties and gone through the record minutely and carefully.

        It is evident that the complainant had got booked two railway tickets on line for himself and his wife on 12.10.2017 for the journey from Jaipur to Chandigarh on 18.12.2017. The booking was confirmed by the OP vide ticket (Annexure C-1) for an amount of Rs.2590/-. It is also not disputed that the said train was cancelled for the scheduled date i.e.18.12.2017 and the complainant along with his wife had to perform the journey from Jaipur to Chandigarh vai Jet Airways flight No.9W2262 by paying an amount of Rs.10560/- to Jet Airways. It is also an admitted fact that cancellation message of the train was received from the OP on 19.12.2017. The complainant has no grievances with regard to the refund of journey fair amounting to Rs.2590/-, which was paid by him to the OP for the train journey. The complainant has the grievances only with regard to the in action on the part of the OP pertaining to delayed delivery of message, regarding cancellation of train, to the complainant. It is grievances of the complainant that OP did not inform him timely about the cancellation of the train even as the train was cancelled on 19.12.2017 vide Annexure C-7. The contention of the complainant is that if the OP had informed him timely then he would have been saved from incurring the extra expenses on account of the air journey and further he would have made some alternative arrangements for the journey.

        On the other hand, the OP has denied the claim of the complainant stating that there is no control of the OP over the running and cancellation of the train and that the OP only provides the internet facility to the consumers for availing the E-ticket. The ld. counsel appearing on behalf of OP asserted that the OP i.e. IRCTC has no role in the matter and the IRCTC and Railway Department are two different entities and the complaint is not maintainable against the IRCTC. The ld. counsel vehemently contended that complaint is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties as the complainant has failed to implead the Chief Commercial Manager, Northern Railway, who is necessary party for adjudication in the present case. It is contended that no cause of action has arisen in the jurisdiction of this Forum as journey was to be performed from Jaipur to Chandigarh and that there is no branch office or any other of the office of the OP located at Panchkula or within the jurisdiction of this Forum. The ld. counsel placed reliance upon Section 13(a) and Section 15 of Railway Claims Tribunal of 1987 in support of his contention that this Forum has no jurisdiction in the matter. Concluding the arguments, the ld. counsel stated that complaint is liable to be dismissed as refund of the amount of the railway ticket has already made to the complainant.

6.     On the basis of pleadings as well as arguments advanced by both the parties, we find that following questions require adjudication by this Forum:-

1. Whether any cause of action has arisen in the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.
2. Whether complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of non-joinder of Chief Commercial Manager, Northern Railway, who is alleged to bea  necessary party.

We take up the above questions for discussion in the same seriatim:-

1. In the present case journey ticket was obtained by the complainant through email, which is evident from a bare perusal of Annexure C-1. Even otherwise it is not disputed that the complainant availed the E-ticket from OP through internet and got the confirmation of the same from the internet. It is the case of the complainant that he availed the facility of E-ticket from his house at Panchkula; thus this Forum has the jurisdiction to decide the complaint as the online booking of the railway ticket was done and confirmed in the Panchkula (jurisdiction of this Forum) and hence, we reject the plea of the OP in this regard.
2. Regarding the non impleadment of Chief Commercial Manager, Northern Railway, we find no force and substance in this plea of the OP as admittedly booking of ticket was made by the complainant from the OP, the ticket confirmation (Annexure C-1) was sent by the OP. The cancellation message dated 19.12.2017 pertaining to the to the cancellation of the train was undisputedly was also sent by the OP.

Further, refund of the ticket amounting to Rs.2590/- was also made by OP on 21.12.2017. It is not the case of the OP that it is providing the services on a charitable basis or on no profit no loss basis. Undoubtedly, IRCTC i.e. OP is a service provider and collecting money from its consumers and making profit. Thus, we are of the considered view that the OP cannot escape from its liability to compensate the consumers by saying that its role is limited to the provision of the internet access to Railway Passenger Reservation System. In view of these facts it may safely be concluded that the complainant has the grievances only against the OP i.e. IRCTC and not against the railways as he has no grievances with regard to the cancellation of the train.

7.     Now, coming to the facts whether the OP has provided the timely information to the complainant with regard to the cancellation of the train, we find that the complainant was admittedly informed regarding the cancellation of the train on 19.12.2017 after the schedule time of the train and thus, there is a serious lapse on the part of the OP while not informing the complainant regarding the cancellation of the train. Moreover, the deficiency and the lapse on the part of the OP became more serious when we notice that the train was cancelled w.e.f. 01.12.2017 vide letter dated 29.11.2017 Annexure C-7 issued by Ministry of Railways whereas the complainant was conveyed on 19.12.2017 by OP regarding the cancellation of the train. Undisputedly, the OP i.e. IRCTC is an Government Undertaking under the Ministry of Railways and hence, it cannot be the case of the OP that it was not aware of the said letter dated 29.11.2017 Annexure C-7. Hence, we have no hesitation to conclude that there has been lapse and deficiency on the part of the OP and hence, the complainant is entitled to relief.

8.     Regarding relief, we find that the complainant along with his wife had performed the journey through Jet airways by incurring an expenses of Rs.10,560/- on account of purchase of air ticket. Hence, we find the said claim of the complainant to be genuine and reasonable.

9.     As a sequel to above discussion, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant by directing the Op to refund the amount of Rs.10,560/- to the complainant along with interest @9% per annum on the said amount w.e.f date of filing of present complaint till its realization. The Op is further directed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.3,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation charges.

10.    The OP shall comply with the order within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Forum for initiation of proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of CP Act, against the OP. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

25.02.2019         RUBY SHARMA      JAGMOHAN SINGH       SATPAL

                          MEMBER               MEMBER               PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                         SATPAL

                                         PRESIDENT