Judgment dated 26-07-2016

            This is a complaint made by one Ashis Roy Chaudhuri against Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited praying for a direction upon the OP to return the amount paid by the Complainant to the tune of Rs.6,082.47 plus Rs.12 Bank charges and further direction to the OP to pay an amount to the tune of Rs.3,675/- which is the difference between the price of Air ticket and cancelled Train ticket and compensation to the tune of Rs.30,000/- for mental agony and harassment and also litigation cost.

            The facts in brief are that Complainant purchased an on line ticket for Train No.12704 Faluknama Express on 18/10/2014 under tatkal quota bearing PNR No.4401339090. When the Complainant clicked for bank payment the website showed that only 4 seats were available. But after the payment the Complainant found that the ticket was in waiting list 10. This was vital for the Complainant and he was compelled to cancel the same ticket immediately on the same day.

             Complainant purchased another ticket bearing PNR No.4101342736 of the same train under premium tatkal scheme where he found that only one ticket was available. After booking the said ticket Complainant found that ticket price was abnormally high at Rs.6,082.47. This ticket had no mention that it is non-refundable. Complainant assumed that the general rule of refund would apply for cancellation of this ticket. On 18/10/2014 because of its high price Complainant was in dismay and under compelling circumstances purchased an air ticket after paying Rs.9,770/-.Only after cancellation Complainant found that no refund would be made.

              So Complainant found that this is deficiency in service on the part of IRCTC and lodged this complaint.

              OP IRCTC filed written version and denied all the allegations of the complaint. It is stated that refund of fare of premium tatkal tickets has not arisen out of any action or inaction on the part of the IRCTC. Complainant booked two E-tickets one in 3AC tatkal quota which was cancelled and he got refund of Rs.1,980/- second ticket he purchased on premium tatkal quota which was cancelled by the Complainant but he did not get the refund. As per rules of railways premium tatkal is not refundable. Further OP has denied the allegation that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the IRCTC. Accordingly the OP has prayed for dismissal of this case.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief to which OP filed questionnaire. Thereafter Complainant filed affidavit-in-reply after which OP filed evidence on affidavit and argument were heard on both the sides.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs which he has prayed for.

            On perusal of the affidavit-in-chief filed by the Complainant it appears that Complainant has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint. Against this an affidavit-in-chief, questionnaire has been filed by the OP to which Complainant has asserted that since there was no reflection in the Website about the premium tatkal being non-refundable, it amounts to deficiency in service and IRCTC must be made liable for not reflecting it to the customer. However, it appears on perusal of the print out of the ticket filed on behalf of Complainant that the rules of cancellation of E-ticket are there and as per that Complainant before cancellation of premium tatkal ticket which was confirmed ticket should have gone through the rules from the Website which he did not do. Instead he thought that the amount which he invested in purchasing premium tatkal ticket would be sufficient for air fare and he purchased ticket through Indigo for coming to Kolkata without caring the ticket which he purchased through premium tatkal and which was a confirmed ticket.

It is general rule also that if a confirmed ticket from general quota is cancelled within 48 hours the refund rules do not warrant refund of even more than 50%.

            On perusal of the tickets filed by the Complainant it appears that the first railway ticket which was purchased under tatkal scheme was in the name of Nairita Roy C and finally the air ticket filed also in the name of Ms Nairita Roy C.

         The above makes it clear that the aggrieved person is not the Complainant but one Nairita Roy C. As per section 2(b) a Complainant can be a consumer or in case of death of consumer his or her legal heir or representative can make a complaint. As per definition of consumer a person who buys any goods for a consideration is a consumer.

            In the present complaint, Complainant neither purchased the ticket nor traveled and he has filed this complaint on behalf of other person and he has not disclosed his authority to file this complaint on behalf of Nairita Roy C. He also did not choose to mention as to whether he was authorized by the aggrieved to lodge this complaint or there is any relation of him with the aggrieved.

            In the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is clear that Complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed both on the ground on rules of IRCTC and on the ground that the complaint filed by Complainant is not in accordance with the Consumer Protection Act.

            Hence,

O R D E R E D

            CC/63/2015 and the same is dismissed on contest.