Delhi

East Delhi

CC/251/2014

SHASHANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

IRCTC - Opp.Party(s)

25 Sep 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.      251/2014                                               

                                                                                                 Date of Institution               12/03/2014

                                                                                                 Order reserved on               25/09/2017

                                                                                                 Date of Order                       28/09/2017  

                                                                                                        

In matter of

Mr. Shashank Kumar, adult   

S/o  Sh.   Bhuneshwar Sahu,

R/o- 23 B, North Enclave, Mayur Vihar Ph. I,

Delhi-110091………………………….……………………...………..…………….Complainant

                                                        

                                                                          Vs

1-M/s Manager,

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                                                                                                   

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member 

Brief Facts of the case                                                                                                

Complainant booked one ticket for his three family members for Ranchi from New Delhi by Ranchi Rajdhani Express on 04/02/2014 vide PNR no. 2517927898 and got a confirmed ticket and paid a sum of Rs 4042/-(Ex. CW1/1) with boarding point at New Delhi.

It had been stated that when he went to see off his family members from Ranchi Rajdhani train on the scheduled date (21/02/2014), he was surprised that TTE had not allowed to take seats of his members as boarding place was from “Kanpur” and not from New Delhi, where his two members were in very advance age and had senior citizen status and thus had to leave train. The complainant felt insulted by the attitude of TTE, so he immediately contacted OP1 office who told to get in touch with OP2 as they could not help in this matter. So complainant lodged his complaint with OP2 also, but did not get any response. Felt insulted he suffered mental harassment and los of financial loss. So he filed this complaint and claimed mental harassment for a sum of Rs 90,000/- besides other relief as Forum may grant in the interest of justice.  

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 who reserve the ticket from his/her ID after deducting some service charges as per the terms set by the Railways.  

It was also stated that TTE on board could not alter any change for place of boarding. In this case, the boarding point was changed from New Delhi to Kanpur from counter no. 3 of Kharagpur PRS location on 05/02/2014 at 09.49 hours. As reserved passengers did not travel on confirmed tickets and TDR was filed on 21/02/2014 and refund was arranged through EDR system automatically and claimant got refund of amount Rs 1990/- automatically in the account of complainant’s ID through their Chief Commercial Manager at Central Zone Manager of South Eastern Railway. This point was not mentioned in the complaint by the complainant and the same point of issue was hidden intentionally before the Forum.  

It was stated that claim for refund was filed in respect of Shakuntala Devi who was an independent entity and had a separate privity of contract in relation to the travelling ticket and status of passenger; hence the present complainant had no locus standee to file the complaint under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

It was also stated that refund was already done in the account of claimant, hence there was no cause of action under any deficiency in the services of OP, so this complaint may be dismissed.            

The complainant submitted his rejoinder to the written statement of OP and denied reply submitted by OP. He stated that he never applied for TDR and as passengers did not travel due to the change of boarding place, hence was entitled for full refund of booking amount of three tickets. As stated by OP that a sum of Rs 1990/- were received in his account was not true and not acceptable. He stated his facts and evidences on affidavit and reaffirmed on oath that all his contents were true and correct. Thus he was entitled for full refund.  

OP submitted their evidences on affidavit through Mr Anand Kumar Jha, Dy. General Manager 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, neither OP nor TTE could 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, 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. It was evident that complainant had booked three tickets for his family on 04/02/014 through OP / IRCTC for Ranchi from Ranchi Rajdhani train scheduled for 21/02/2014. But complainant had not stated in his complaint or in his rejoinder that boarding point was changed from New Delhi to Kanpur through Kharagpur, Ranchi and also received refund against not travelled. Complainant has not refuted the fact of OP about filing of TDR by someone else where complainant has stated that OP had changed the boarding point from New Delhi to Kanpur without any concrete evidence on record. After perusing evidence Ex CW1/1, all the contents are clearly visible and there is no evidence of change of boarding point through printed ticket.

Hence, we are in the opinion that this complaint is devoid of any merit and the same deserves to be dismissed so dismissed without any cost.

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