Delhi

East Delhi

CC/1140/2014

PRITPAL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

IRCTC - Opp.Party(s)

05 Dec 2017

ORDER

                 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                 CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                                                 Consumer  Complaint no.    1140/2014                                          

                                                                                                 Date of Institution               15/12/2014

                                                                                                 Order reserved on               05/12/2017

                                                                                                 Date of Order                       06/12/2017  

                                                                                                       

In matter of

Mr. Pritpal Singh Chawla, adult   

S/o  Late Sh. Jawand Singh

R/o- HN – 253, Gali no. 5,  

Bholanath Nagar, Shahdara , Delhi-110032…...………..…………….Complainant

                                                                      Vs

IRCTC  

IRCTC, 9^th Floor, Bank of Baroda Building,

16, Parliament Street, New Delhi  110001.……………………………….Opponent

 

Quorum     Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                    Dr P N Tiwari               Member                                                                                                   

                    Mrs Harpreet Kaur     Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member 

Brief Facts of the case                                                                                                

Complainant booked one ticket for his four group members as Pritpal Singh himself, NK Madan, Manjeet Singh and Jasbir Singh from New Delhi to Patna JN by Sampoorn Kranti Express train no.12394 under general quota through agent ‘Oxygen Services India Pvt Ltd.’ on 20/02/2014 vide PNR no. 2829389264 and paid Rs 11,040/-and return tickets from Patna Jn to New Delhi by same train on 27/02/2014 and paid Rs 11,040/-. Both the tickets were confirmed (Ex. CW1/1 and Ex CW1/3).  

It had been stated that complainant was having a religious society performing ‘Kirtan’ at different places and used to get their fee as ‘Kirtan Bhet’. Here, also complainant had to reach Patna Saheb Gurudwara to perform ‘Kirtan’ on 27/02/2014 in the afternoon and were to return in the evening by the same train and was to get ‘Kirtan Bhet’ of sum of Rs 50,000/-, but complainant and his team could not perform ‘Kirtan’, so could not receive the ‘Kirtan Bhet’ due to  delay in departure of train from New Delhi on 27/02/2014 instead of 26/02/2014 as the train reached very late at New Delhi station that day and thereafter reached Patna on 28/02/2014 at 4.11 am instead of 27/02/2014 06.55 am for over 20 hours (Ex CW1/5), so complainant had to cancel his return journey tickets from Patna and received 50% refund amount of total ticket cost RS 11,040/-.

Complainant sent legal notice for refund of entire deducted money on 25/03/2014 (Ex CW1/7), but no reply was received, so filed this complaint suffered mental harassment and financial loss Rs 50,000/- and claimed refund of deducted amount by OP Rs 13,884/- with additional sum of Rs 10,000/- for apology to the management committee of Patna Saheb Gurudwara at Patna. Complainant further claimed loss of Rs 50,000/- as he was to get ‘Kirtan Bhet’ and litigation charges Rs 15,000/-. 

After receiving notice, OP / IRCTC filed written statement and denied all the allegations leveled   against them. It was stated that the present OP was a mere facilitator of services provided on behalf of India Railways to all those who wish to reserve their tickets as per the terms and conditions set by the Railways. It was also stated that the moment ticket was booked as confirmed or wait listed, passengers / customers amount goes in the account of the Railways and if tickets were not confirmed or refund was sought by the passenger, the amount gets transferred in the account of the person as per refund criteria of Indian Railways (Ex OPW1/1 and CW1/2) who reserve the ticket from his/her ID after deducting some service charges as per the terms set by the Railways. Here in this case, tickets were booked through ID of an agent. Even if passenger did not travel, TDR had to be filed and amount was to be refunded by Indian Railways as per refund policy.       

It was also stated that complainant got cancelled Mr N K Madan name and refund was received a sum of Rs 2635/- against PNR no. 2829389264. Similarly, complainant filed TDR on the date of departure of train with reason’ Train late more than three hours and passenger not travelled, so party received a sum of 8280/-. The other ticket PNR no. 6127724398 was also cancelled on 27/02/2014 and got refund. Thus, there was no deficiency on the part of OP. More so, complainant had not made Indian Railways as necessary party for his grievances, if any, but only made ticket booking sub agent as a party, so this complaint had to be dismissed.  

It was also submitted that complainant did not submit any concrete evidence to prove that train was got late due to the willful act of OP/IRCTC and has travelled later on from Rajdhani Express to Patna and back to New Delhi for tendering apology at Patna and also there was no evidence on record to show that complainant had actually suffered ‘heavy’ loss of Rs 50,000/- as ‘Kirtan Bhet’. Complainant had not put any concrete evidence to prove that present OP/IRCTC was as deficient in their services.              

The complainant submitted his rejoinder to the written statement of OP and denied reply submitted by OP and also submitted evidences on affidavit where he reaffirmed on oath that his all facts of the complaints were true and correct and refund was done by OP illegally. Thus he was entitled for full refund. 

OP submitted their evidences on affidavit through Mr Anand Kumar Jha, Dy. General Manager working with IRCTC /OP and affirmed on oath their facts in written statement with evidences were true and correct. OP role was stated clearly which works on the terms and conditions set by the separate identity as Indian Railways and all the booking amount which used to be paid by the booking person reaches in the account of Railways. All booking and refund process were done automatically by Indian Railway portal. Their work was on PRS system through server and with internet connectivity. So, OP could not be made liable for any deficiency in their services and present complaint was not filed with true and correct facts by the complainant.  It was also stated that complainant had received refund amount against their confirmed tickets as per the Indian Railways Circular for refund policy, so there was no cause of action and deficiency in services by OP.

Arguments were heard from both the party counsels and after perusal of file, order was served. We have scrutinized all the facts and evidences submitted by the parties.

There was no concrete evidence for departure of train was delayed over 20 hours.  Also there was no evidence of performing ‘Kirtan’ on 26/02/2014 at Patna. Railway always issues various directions and advisories, but complainant has not mentioned about heavy foggy weather in January and February months as Railway’s advisory is issued every year pertaining to heavy foggy conditions from mid December to February every year specially in winter season where train timings got disturbed specially for trains coming from eastern route to Delhi and simultaneously going to eastern side.

We have also seen cancellation rules for deduction of tickets in confirmed, waitlisted quota and category of class of sleeper opted. It has been submitted by OP that if trains were late more than four hours and passenger had not travelled; full refund of charges were given except service charges. Here, tickets were cancelled on the same day less than 24 hours.

So, there was no deficiency on the part of OP/IRCTC as ticket booking agents. Thus, this complaint has no merit and deserves to be dismissed so dismissed without cost to order.       

The copy of this order be sent to the parties under the Regulation 18 of the Consumer Protection act, 1986 (in short Act) and file be consigned to the Record Room under Regulation 20 of the Act.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari  Member                                                                    Shri Sukhdev Singh  President