Order dictated by:

Sh.Anoop Sharma,Presiding Member

1.       Kanwar Rajinder Singh complainant has brought the instant complaint under section  12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  on the allegations  that  on 25.12.2016 complainant booked a ticket from Amritsar to New Delhi  for 31.12.2016 vide PNR No. 2326287905 in Train No. 14038 PTK DEL EXP with a status as RLWL 16 and Rs. 360/- were charged against the ticket by opposite party No.2. On 31.12.2016 before moving from the house, complainant checked status of his ticket which was showing as WL1. However, return journey ticket was confirmed. The complainant moved from his house to board the train in the morning and purchased another ticket of second sitting by paying Rs. 1500/- from Amrisar to New Delhi and boarded the train. At the time of boarding of train, complainant was stunned to see that  tickets of WL 15 and WL 17 were confirmed  but ticket of complainant which was having WL 16 was not confirmed . The complainant made complaint to TTE  about the same . But the TTE instead of giving seat in Chair car told the complainant that he can manage a seat in the chair car  but for this complainant has to pay another amount. As the complainant was very much uncomfortable, so under compelled circumstances has paid another sum of Rs. 350/- as demanded by TTE  and seat was allotted to the complainant from Ludhiana. The complainant requested the TTE to adjust the amount already paid qua second sitting ticket i.e. Rs. 155/- from Ludhiana to New Delhi, but he did not accept the request . The said TTE also refused to give concession of Senior Citizen while charging the said amount. So the complainant in all paid Rs. 865/- of ticket of Chair car from Amritsar to New Delhi, however  the amount shown in IRCTC ticket was Rs. 360/-. The act of the opposite party in not giving concession of Senior Citizen and further not confirming the ticket at WL 16 when WL 17 was already confirmed  and further charging  Rs. 505/- in excess from complainant against the single journey from Amritsar to New Delhi clearly amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. The complainant also served legal notice dated 4.1.2017 upon the opposite party , but opposite party neither gave reply nor refunded the amount received in excess . Vide instant complaint, complainant has sought for the following reliefs:-

(a)     Opposite party be directed to  refund the amount of Rs. 505/- received in excess  ;

(b)     Compensation to the tune of Rs. 50000/-  on account of not confirming the seat of complainant  ;

(c )     Opposite party be also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 25000/- on account of harassment, mental agony suffered by the complainant alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 15000/- may also be awarded to the complainant.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, opposite party No.2 appeared and filed written version taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia  that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present Forum ; that the present complaint is bad for misjoinder and non joinder of necessary parties, as such the same is liable to be dismissed  ; that the present complaint is filed without any cause of action against Indian Railways Catering and Tourism Corporation   ; that the present complaint is not maintainable against the replying opposite party  since IRCTC only provides access to Railway passenger’s reservation system through its server and internet connectivity to book the ticket  through it. As soon as ticket is issued from IRCTC  Web site, fare is transferred to the railway. It is pertinent to mention here that IRCTC has no control over the charging i.e. allotment of Berths   etc. that at the time of charging or after charting and in the running train, train operation is under the control of the concerned railway only. The staff working in the running train is also under the control of concerned railway only.  On merits, it was admitted that an e-ticket was booked Ex Amritsar to Delhi on 31.12.2016 in Train No. 14038 of CC class in the name of Kanwar Rajinder Singh M-66 on payment of Rs. 360/- as ticket fare only . It was submitted that at the time of booking, status of the ticket was in waiting list . After charting status of the ticket remained in waiting list. It was submitted that all the allegations are pertains to concerned railway and have no concerned with the replying opposite party. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was made.

3.       Initially Sh. Ramesh Chander Sharma, Adv. appeared on behalf of opposite party No.1 and filed power of attorney and the case was adjourned for filing written version. Thereafter opposite party No.1 did not opt to put in appearance and was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.

4.       In his bid to prove the case Kanwar Pahul Singh,Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of ticket Ex.C-2, copy of text message Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4, copy of tickets Ex.C-5 & Ex.C-6, copy of postal receipts Ex.C-7 and Ex.C-8, copy of legal notice Ex.C-9 and closed the evidence  on behalf of the complainant.

5.            To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.M.S.Chhina,Adv.counsel for the opposite party No.2 tendered into evidence duly sworn affidavit of Sh.Sukhwinder Pal Singh, Joint General Manager, Catering Services, IRCTC Ex.OP2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No.2.

6.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.

7.       From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that on 25.12.2016 complainant booked a ticket from Amritsar to New Delhi  for 31.12.2016 vide PNR No. 2326287905 in Train No. 14038 PTK DEL EXP with a status as RLWL 16 and Rs. 360/- were charged against the ticket by opposite party No.2. It has been alleged that on 31.12.2016 before moving from the house complainant checked status of his ticket which was showing as WL1. However, return journey ticket for the next day was confirmed. The complainant purchased another ticket of second sitting by paying Rs. 150/- from Amrisar to New Delhi and boarded the train. It has further been alleged that  complainant was stunned to see that  tickets of WL 15 and WL 17 were confirmed  but ticket of complainant which was having WL 16 was not confirmed . In this regard complainant made complaint to TTE  , but the said  TTE instead of giving seat in Chair car told the complainant that he can manage a seat in the chair car  but for this complainant has to pay another amount. As the complainant was very much uncomfortable, so under compelled circumstances has paid another sum of Rs. 350/- as demanded by TTE  and seat was allotted to the complainant from Ludhiana. The complainant requested the TTE to adjust the amount already paid qua second sitting ticket i.e. Rs. 155/- from Ludhiana to New Delhi, but he did not accept the request . The said TTE also refused to give concession of Senior Citizen while charging the said amount. It was the case of the complainant that for the said journey from Amritsar to New Delhi, complainant has to incur Rs. 865, however  the amount shown in IRCTC ticket was Rs. 360/-. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.

8.       On the other hand  opposite party No.2 has repelled the aforesaid contentions of the complainant on the ground that present complaint is not maintainable against the replying opposite party  since IRCTC only provides access to Railway passenger’s reservation system through its server and internet connectivity to book the ticket  through it. As soon as ticket is issued from IRCTC  Web site, fare is transferred to the railway. It is pertinent to mention here that IRCTC has no control over the charging i.e. allotment of Berths   etc. that at the time of charging or after charting and in the running train, train operation is under the control of the concerned railway only. The staff working in the running train is also under the control of concerned railway only.  Ld.counsel for the opposite party No.1 has submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of IRCTC.

9.       From the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that the complainant booked a ticket from Amritsar to New Delhi for 31.12.2016 by paying Rs. 360/-  with a status as RL WL 16. When on 31.12.2016, the complainant moved from his house, he checked the status of his ticket and the same was showing as WL 1. However the return ticket of the complainant was confirmed  for the next day. The complainant purchased another ticket of second sitting by paying Rs. 155/- from Amritsar to New Delhi, the railway ticket accounts for Ex.C-5 on record. The complainant was stunned to see that persons , who were having tickets for WL 15 and WL 17 were confirmed  ,but however the ticket of WL 16 of the complainant was not confirmed. In this regard complainant made complaint to TTE , who instead of giving  seat to the complainant in Chair car told the complainant to purchase another ticket of Chair Car. However, the complainant  was feeling uncomfortable  and under compelled circumstances purchased another ticket for a sum of Rs. 350/- from Ludhiana .  The ticket in this regard is Ex.C-6 on record. As such the complainant has to pay Rs. 865/- for the journey from Amritsar to New  Delhi. However, the case of opposite party No.2  is that opposite party No.2 has no control over the charting i.e. allotment of Berths   etc. that at the time of charting or after charting and in the running train, train operation is under the control of the concerned railway only. As the opposite party No.2 has done its duty by issuing ticket to the complainant with WL 16 and it was not the case of the complainant that opposite party No.2 has not issued any ticket to the complainant for the journey which was to be commenced on 31.12.2016.  As such there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2.

10.     Opposite party No.1  after filing memo of appearance , did not opt to appear and contest the complaint and thereby the opposite party No.1 impliedly  admitted the claim of the complainant, which further shows that the opposite party No.1 had no defence to offer for contesting the case of the complainant. As such the case of the complainant that the persons, who were having tickets for WL 15 and WL 17 were confirmed  ,but however the ticket of WL 16 of the complainant was not confirmed, stands unrebutted and has been impliedly admitted by the opposite party No.1. The other stand of the  complainant  that he made complaint to TTE who instead of giving  seat to the complainant in Chair car told the complainant to purchase another ticket of Chair  which the complainant under compelled circumstances purchased for a sum of Rs. 350/- from Ludhiana to New Delhi  and the complainant has produced on record ticket Ex.C-6 on record. As such the complainant has to pay Rs. 865/- for the journey from Amritsar to New Delhi for no fault of his  as he booked  a ticket well in time i.e. on 25.12.2016 for a sum of Rs. 360/- for the journey to be commenced on 31.12.2016. 

11.     From the appraisal of the evidence,we are of the considered view that the opposite party No.1 has wrongly charged the complainant Rs. 505/- for the railway ticket of Chair car  for which the complainant has already spent Rs. 360/- with railway ticket WL 16. The opposite party No.1 has not been able to rebut the case of the complainant that the  person with ticket WL 17 was not travelling in the train for which the complainant has booked the ticket with WL 16 as the opposite party No.1 did not put in appearance and was proceeded against ex-parte .  So the complainant is liable for the refund of Rs. 505/- charged in excess for the ticket from Amritsar to New Delhi.

12.     In view of the above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed and opposite party No.1 is directed to refund Rs. 505/- charged in excess from the complainant. Opposite party No.1 is also burdened with compensation to the tune of Rs. 2000/- for the harassment suffered by the complainant besides Rs. 1000/- as litigation expenses . Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 23.5.2017