Before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central], 5th Floor ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi
Complaint Case No.-141/2016
Surender Kumar Tyagi, r/o WZ-91/1, Village Budhela,
Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018 …Complainant
Versus
Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd.
[M/s IRCTC Ltd.], Group General Manager/IT,
Internet Ticketing Centre, IRCA Building, State Entry Road,
New Delhi-110055 ...Opposite Party
Date of filing: 11.04.2016
Date of Order: 01.07.2023
Coram: Shri Inder Jeet Singh, President
Ms. Shahina, Member -Female
Shri Vyas Muni Rai, Member
Inder Jeet Singh, President
ORDER
1.1. (Introduction to case of parties)–The complainant alleges deficiency of services against OP since he had booked e-ticket for travelling, its waiting was RAC-39, however, a night before the date of journey, the current status was RAC-18 but train was cancelled. The complainant was constrained to book air-ticket, which was at higher price than the railway ticket. Moreover, a few minutes before the scheduled time of departure of train, the train was restored. The complainant had applied for TDR, it was refused, which was in violation of Indian Railway Refund Rules 2015. That is why the complaint for refund of railway ticket amount of Rs. 2,185/-, air ticket amount of Rs. 6,622/-, compensation being a hundred times of railway ticket i.e. Rs. 2,18,500/- and cost of Rs. 1,000/-.
1.2. The complaint was filed on 11.04.2016 and during the pending of complaint, the complainant was refunded an amount of Rs. 2,140/- on 04.08.2016, as per reply of OP and complainant has also confirmed it by supplementing that firstly his claim was wrongly and illegally repudiated but realizing its own fault by OP, the amount was refunded, however, it does not cease the cause of action and the relief claim, it establishes deficiency of services.
1.3. The OP opposed the complaint that it is without cause of action and there was reservation/RAC ticket of complainant, however, there was some agitation and services of trains or routes were cancelled for the safety and security of passengers but lateron the services were resumed after uncertainty was over. The route of scheduled train line was cleared. The complainant was also refunded the ticket amount of Rs. 2,140/-. Complaint is liable to be dismissed.
2.1. (Case of complainant) – The complainant had to attend an important meeting on 23.02.2016 in Pune, that is why on 19.02.2016 he booked e-ticket having PNR no. 2760639868 for his reserved journey on 22.02.2016 from Delhi to Pune of in train Pune Duronto Express having train no. 122641. He had also booked return journey ticket by air from Pune to Delhi via Indigo.
On 21.02.2016 at 07:38am, the status of ticket was RAC-39, however, there was Jat agitation going on those days, and when again status was checked on 21.02.2016 at 10:18pm, it was “P1 Cur Stat RAC-18, Chart status: train cancelled, train departure time 10:55am” being shown on PNR status SMS on railway enquiry no. 139. As per Indian Railway Refund Rules, 2015, in case of cancellation of trains, automatic full refund is there for RAC e-tickets. Considering the situation as well as to attend the urgent meeting, the complainant was constrained to book flight air-ticket from Delhi to Pune on 21.02.2016. It was surprise for the complainant, when he came to know on 22.02.2016 the train on Delhi-Mathura line start running and on checking the same, the status was found as B8,31. The complainant tried to file TDR by selecting appropriate reason “unable to cancel, due to train restored after train cancellation”, the complainant obtained screen shot thereof and filed with the complaint. OP’s system was not accepting TDR by showing reason “TDR can be filed only before 4 hours of train departure.
2.2. The complainant contacted the enquiry and he was advised to write email, accordingly he has written the grievances, which were filed by them but there was no response and finally the claim was rejected/repudiated for the reason “no EDR has been fed against the particular PNR as party has travelled as per Indian Railways Refund Rules 2013”.
2.3. However, it is a usual practice of the OP to reject the claims of refund in a routine manner and Indian Railway Rules 2015 are in existence but complainant's claim was repudiated under the Rules 2013. That is why the complaint and for award of exemplary compensation so that OP may not repeat the same thing with anyone.
3.1 (Case of OP)- The complaint is opposed vehemently for want of cause of action. M/s IRCTC/OP and the Indian Railways are two different entities. Chief Commercial Manager (Refund), North Central Railway has not been impleaded as a necessary party in the complaint, since refund is to be made by it.
3.2. It is not disputed that complainant had booked e-ticket AC-III by train no. 12264 for 22.02.2016 in his name, M-36, on payment of Rs. 18,75/- as ticket fare + Rs. 265/- catering charges + Rs. 45/- IRCTC as service charges. On the date of travelling, Jat agitation for reservation was going on, all train routes around Delhi were blocked by agitators and in order to ensure safety of passengers, the railways dealt cautious and train departing from Delhi were cancelled. The schedule of trains departing from Delhi was highly uncertain. The status of train on 21.02.2016 at 10:18pm was reflecting cancellation of train but lateron it was restored as Delhi-Mathura line was cleared. The complainant’s e-ticket status was confirmed as B8-31.
3.3. The complainant did not file TDR but sent the request on mail to customer care for filing TDR refund. Thus, on email request of complainant, the OP filed TDR but on 31.03.2016 the Railways repudiated the case with remarks “no EDR has been fed against the particular PNR as party has travelled”.
However, on the request of complainant, OP requested Chief Commercial Manager (Refund) Central Railway to reconsider the case and after persistent efforts of the OP, complainant’s refund case was approved and full refund of Rs. 2,140/- was transferred in the account of complainant on 04.08.2016. Consequently, no grievances have been left. Complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. (Replication of complainant) – Complainant filed the replication, it reiterates the case as mentioned in the complaint. Further, the complainant booked the train eticket through OP who is providing online train ticket services and also charging for their services, therefore, OP is a proper party to the complaint. The OP being service provider is liable to compensate.
5.1. (Evidence)- The complainant filed detailed affidavit on oath, which is also a rejoinder to the reply of OP. The complainant has relied upon documentary record of e-ticket issued by OP2, return air-ticket from Pune to Delhi, Rules 9 & 13 of the Railway Passenger (cancellation of tickets and refund of fair) Rules, 1998, air ticket from New Delhi to Pune, screen-shots, email, TDR status/repudiate information.
5.2. On the other side, OP filed affidavit of Sh. Sanjay Mehta, JGM/ Legal, IRCTC/NZ Ajmeri Gate, Delhi and the affidavit is on the lines of reply.
6.1 (Final hearing)- The complainant had filed written arguments in detailed and also supplementary arguments under the title concluding comments that initially in the complaint cost of Rs. 1,000/- was requested, however, considering the pending of complaint as well as number of hearing took place, he deserves cost of Rs. 30,000/-. Moreover, he was given opportunity to make oral submissions but complainant requested that the written arguments may be considered being suffice.
6.2. The written arguments were also filed on behalf of OP, the same are replica of reply and oral submissions were also made by Sh. Vivek Kadyan, Advocate for OP.
7.1 (Findings)- The rival contentions are considered keeping in view the material on record. This complaint was filed under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
7.2. There are reservations on the point of impleadment of OP as a party to the complaint. Since the OP is a service provider for e-ticketing against consideration/ charges, therefore, the circumstances explained on behalf of complainant that OP being service provider is appropriate party, his contentions are accepted. It is held that OP is necessary party and accordingly it has been impleaded properly. There may be in-house arrangement for refunds through Chief Commercial Manager (Refund), North Central Railway, however, service provider is OP, thus complainant is also not bad for want of joining opposite party to complaint.
7.4. So far, other rival situation are concerned, the events can be split into two parts, firstly, cancellation of train and secondly, consequences of cancellation of train. So far, first component is concerned, either because of law and order situation as well as other precautions, certain train and routes were cancelled because of the then agitation going on. So far the present complaint is concerned, it pertains to the second situation. Whether or not the complainant is entitled for the relief claims, one of them is refund of the ticket amount when complaint was filed?. Therefore, the following conclusions are drawn:-
(i) The complainant has referred the Railway Passenger (cancellation of tickets and refund of fair) Rules, 1998, its rules 9 and 21 read as follows:
“Rule 9: In case of cancellation of trains, automatic full refund of fare on confirmed or RAC e-tickets shall be directly credited to the account from which booking transaction took place and online cancellation or filing of TDR shall not be required in such case.
Rule 21. Application for refund of passenger reservation system (PRS) tickets in other circumstances-
(1) for refund of fare under circumstances other than those specified in these rules or under circumstances like ‘bandh’ or agitations or floods, etc., the passengers could not reach the reservation counter or station or current counters for cancellation of tickets, in those cases, a TDR shall be issued to the passenger and the passenger may apply for refund of fare within ten days from the day of commencement of journey to the Chief Commercial Manager (Refunds) of the railway administration under whose jurisdiction the TDR issuing station comes, enclosing the original TDR.
(2) In the circumstances specified in sub-rule (1), the TDR shall be issued only upto three days after the scheduled departure of the train.”
(ii) It is an admitted case of OP that there was cancellation of the train, train was resumed on the scheduled dated of journey vis-à-vis the complainant was not informed of restore of the train despite the detail of complainant was available, as it was e-ticketing,
(iii) the complainant was also denied for refund as passenger had travelled on booking of B8, 31 but complainant had not travelled against ticket, the message given to complainant is contrary to fact and it does not match with features of case,
(iv) the refund was not credited to the account of complainant immediately, which is violation of rule 9 referred above and when it was applied for refund, it was repudiated because the train was restored & passenger travelled, whereas in the enquiry 139 it was showing train cancelled, the non-refund of the amount within time is also violation of rule 21, referred above.
(v) the complaint under consideration was filed on 11.04.2016 and during the pending of complaint, the complainant was made refund of Rs. 2,140/- by direct credit to his account on 04.08.2016; it could have been done immediately after lodging the TDR,
(vi) the complainant's claim was initially declined by OP as the complainant failed to apply for TDR or undertake journey, however, later-on after efforts by the OP, refund of Rs. 2,140/- was done to the complainant. Actually, it was legal compulsion for the OP make refund, since refund rules were to be complied with.
(vii) the conclusion drawn hereinabove clearly establish a case of deficiency of services on the part of OP,
(viii) since the complainant has to make an urgent journey, he was constraint for air-ticket because the scheduled train was cancelled by providing information on the railway enquiry, the complainant had to spend Rs. 6,622/- for his journey on 23.0.2016 from New Delhi to Pune (the air-ticket booked on 21.02.2016 is on paper-book as Annexure-4 of complainant); had there been advance information to the complainant of restore of train after cancellation, the complainant would have not opted for other option of journey but he was constraint to opt that. Since complainant has been refunded amount of Rs. 2,140/-, therefore, he borne additional expenses of Rs. 4,482/- (i.e. Rs. 6,622 – Rs. 2,140 = Rs. 4,482/-) for the journey to reach his destination Pune. He is held entitled for reimbursement of Rs. 4,482/-.
7.5. The complainant claims compensation of Rs. 2,18,500/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- in the original complaint but Rs. 30,000/- in the additional arguments. It is apparent that there is deficiency of services and complainant had to put hard efforts for getting refund that too while referring the provisions of Rules which are known to and already in the practice of OP, since there are specific wings established for TDR and EDR. Therefore, it is appropriate to award the compensation and compensation of Rs. 10,000/- will meet both ends of justice.
7.6. Since the cost claimed is Rs. 1,000/- in the complaint and there cannot be relief beyond what is prayed in the original complaint, therefore, cost of Rs. 1,000/- is allowed in favour of complainant and against the OP.
8: Accordingly, the complaint is allowed in favour of complainant and against the OP to pay Rs.4,482/- apart from to pay damages of Rs.10,000/- & costs of Rs.1,000/- to complainant.
OP is also directed to pay the amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. In case amount is not paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of order, there will be interest of 7% per annum on amount of Rs.4,482/- from the date of complaint till realization.
9. Announced on this Ist July 2023 [आषाढ़ 10, साका 1945]. Copy of this Order be sent/provided forthwith to the parties free of cost as per rules for necessary compliance.
[Vyas Muni Rai] [ Shahina] [Inder Jeet Singh]
Member Member (Female) President
