DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.95/2019

Dr. Brij Bhushan,

X-11, Type 4 Spl,

HUDCO Place, Andrews Ganj,

New Delhi-110049.                                                              ….Complainant

Versus

1. IRCTC Ltd.,

9^th Floor, Bank of Baroda Building

16 Parliament St., New Delhi-110001.

2. Chairman Railway Board,

Rail Bhavan, New Delhi-110001.

                                                                                      ….Opposite Parties

                                                          Date of Institution : 08.04.2019                    Date of Order        : 03.12.2020

Coram:

Ms. Rekha Rani, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

ORDER

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

1. The Present case was instituted on 03.09.2014 with CDRF-VI which was transferred to this Commission vide order dated 22.02.19 of Hon’ble State Commission.
2. Facts as pleaded by the complainant are –

The complainant, Dr. Brij Bhushan, booked an E-ticket in the name of Rahul Amin on the IRCTC website hereinafter referred to as OP-1. The ticket was in wait list. The complainant checked the status of the ticket few days later and the website of OP-1 displayed ‘Train Cancelled”. However, just few hours before the scheduled departure of the train, the complainant received an SMS from OP-1 stating that his ticket is confirmed and a berth is allotted to him. When the passenger actually went to the railway station he found that the train had been ‘Cancelled’.

1. Thereafter, the complainant corresponded with OP-1 through an email for refund of the ticket. His request was forwarded by OP-1 to Railways (OP-2) and was advised to file TDR in future and monitor it. After few days, OP-1 quoting a Rule that the TDR should have been filed within 72 hours of the scheduled departure of the train, refused to refund the ticket amount of Rs.515/-. The complainant alleges that OP-1 and OP-2 by not refunding the ticket amount due to the complainant on cancellation of the train, are forfeiting money of thousands of passengers like him who got reservation through internet.
2. Alleging deficiency of service on part of OP-1 and OP-2 complainant approached this Commission with the following prayer:-

1. The Railways should refund Rs.515 charged for PNR No. 6428803433
2. The Railways should not be allowed to frame rules that the passenger has to file TDR for e-tickets if a train is cancelled. The Railways should refund for e-tickets and inform passengers about it through SMS when a train is cancelled.
3. The Railways and the IRCTC should be fined rupees 50 lakhs each and deposit it in consumer welfare fund.
4. IRCTC may be asked to pay Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation. 

3. OP-1 resisted the complaint stating inter-alia that the complainant has no locus-standi as the ticket was booked in the name of passenger Rahul Amin. It is categorically denied that OP-1 had any knowledge of cancellation of the train. OP-1 stated that it had sent an SMS to the complainant regarding the confirmation of E-ticket as per message sent by Computer Railway Internet Ticketing System to OP-1.
   1. It is next stated that OP-1 and OP-2 are two entirely different entities where role of OP-1 is limited to the provision of internet access to Railway Passenger Reservation System through its server and internet connectivity to book E-ticket through it. It is submitted that OP-1 is never aware of any change in train like change in coaches, train cancellation or train late etc. as the same come under the purview of Indian Railways. It is further submitted that OP-1 has no role in generating the reservation chart or in confirming the wait list passenger as the same are exclusively done by Indian Railways.
   2. As regards the refund of the ticket OP-1 states that the complainant filed the TDR on 09.04.2014 with reason “Train Cancelled” which was forwarded to the Chief Commercial Manager / refunds, Northern Railways however, the same was repudiated by the concerned railways with the reason “TDR was filled beyond the prescribed limit”. It is further submitted that refund is proceeded by the zonal railway under whose jurisdiction destination station of the train falls and OP-1 has no role in deciding the refund as it is decided by the Railways. Copy of the policy framed by Railway Board in this regard is annexed as Annexure-A. It is, therefore, prayed that the complaint be dismissed in the interest of justice.
4. OP-2 did not contest the case and has not filed written statement or reply to the complaint.
5. Rejoinder and evidence by way of affidavit on behalf of the complainant are filed. Evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Anand Kumar Jha, JGM / CS, IRCTC, NZ is filed on behalf of OP-1 .
6. Written arguments are filed on behalf of the parties.
7. Arguments of the parties are heard and material placed on record is perused carefully.
8. As regards the first contention we are of the opinion that the complainant does have a locus-standi in the present matter as the complainant had booked the ticket using his ID and his own credit card. It was just to help his friend Rahul Amin who was to travel from Guwahati to Delhi that the complainant booked the ticket for him. Therefore, as per Section 2 (7) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 complainant is a ‘Consumer’.
9. It is not in dispute that the complainant had paid Rs.515/- for the railway ticket and the train which the ticket holder/ passenger was to board got cancelled. Complainant was aggrieved as the passenger was not informed in time regarding the cancellation of the train rather his wait listed ticket was confirmed few hours before the scheduled departure of the train. He finally got to know about the cancellation when he reached the railway station to board the train.
10. This Commission is of the opinion that having paid for the services of OP-2 and the passenger could not avail the services for no fault of his. Therefore, complainant is entitled to full refund. OP-1 opined the same and accordingly full refund to the complainant was ordered by GGM/IT vide letter dated 20.01.2015 marked as Mark-A with the written statement. In these circumstances stances OP-1 cannot escape from its liability saying that it has no role in the train cancellation or reservation of chart or in confirming the wait listed passengers. OP-1 is one of the wings of OP-2. Evidently, the relationship between OP-1 and OP-2 is that of an agent and master. Complainant had booked his ticket with OP-1. Complainant filed for refund with OP-1 and finally OP-1 has allowed the refund so how can OP-1 escape its liability now. For availing the services of OP2, complainant corresponded with OP-1 only. There was no direct dealing with OP-2. Therefore, OP-1 is an agent of OP-2. OP-2 chose not to contest the case. Therefore, averments made by the complainant against OP-2 have remained unchallenged and uncontroverted.
11. We find merit in the submissions of the complainant that since the train was cancelled at the end of OPs, refund should have been automatically awarded to the complainant. Instead, the consumer has to follow such cumbersome procedures which lead to unnecessary harassment to get their money refunded.
12. From the discussion above, this Commission holds that OP-1 and OP-2 are both jointly and severally liable. Therefore, we allow the complaint and direct OP-1 and OP-2 jointly and severally to refund the amount of Rs.515/- towards the ticket to the complainant within a period of two month from the date of this order. Additionally OP-1 and OP-2 are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- for compensation towards harassment and litigation expenses.
13. Failing which OPs shall become liable to pay Rs.10,515/- @ 10% per annum from the date of cancellation of the train till realization.
14. Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 03.12.2020.