Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Appeal bearing nos. A/243/2016 and A/345/2016 originate out of the order dated 25-02-2016, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Howrah in CC/252/2014.  Incidentally, by such order, the complaint case was allowed. The facts and circumstances of both these Appeals being identical in nature, the same are disposed of through this common order.

In short, case of the Complainants before the Ld. District Forum was that, as the Railway authorities did not refund the price of their wait-listed tickets, they lodged written complaint in this regard on 08-07-2011 and thereafter on several occasions.  Despite this, as their perseverance did not yield the desired result, the complaint case was filed.

OP No. 1 submitted in its WV that at the time of booking, the status of the passengers were in the waiting list at serial nos. 3,4,5 and 6.  However, on the date of journey, after preparation of reservation chart, the Complainants were allotted confirmed accommodation in Coupe ‘H’.  Thus, it vehemently denied that the tickets of the Complainants were not confirmed and blamed them for not checking their status from the website of the IRCTC (OP No. 1) as on the day of journey.  It was further submitted by this OP that since the prayer for refund of the price of tickets were not made within 30 days from the scheduled date of journey, their refund claim was repudiated in March, 2014. 

OP No. 2 too contested the case and by submitting its WV denied the entire material allegation made in the petition of complaint.

Decision with reasons

Be it mentioned here that notice of both these Appeals were duly served upon the Respondents.  Despite this, they remained conspicuous by their absence.  Therefore, the Appeal was heard behind their back.

Admittedly, the concerned Railway authority repudiated the refund claim of the Respondents vide its letter bearing no. C438/IRCTC/Policy/2014 dated March, 2014.  Against such backdrop, the complaint case being filed on 28-04-2014, it cannot be said that the same was hit by limitation.

It is claimed by the Ld. Advocates of the Appellants that all the concerned tickets were confirmed after preparation of reservation chart on the scheduled date of journey.  In order to establish such fact, they filed photocopy of a document wherefrom it transpires that the passengers were accommodated in Coupe No. H.

To be fair, it is to be understood that the Respondents, which included female passengers, intended to go for long journey and since the tickets, those were booked on 29-04-2011 were not confirmed even in the early morning of the scheduled day of journey, i.e., 05-06-2011, there was virtually remote possibility of getting the same confirmed. 

Given that first reservation chart is prepared only few hours before the scheduled departure time of the train concerned and final list is made public only few minutes before the scheduled journey, it was futile to expect the Respondents to reach the boarding station with bulk luggage in anticipation of happening of miracle.   In fact, Appellants have not put forth any material proof to show that the subject reservation chart was made public (in the website of the Appellants) well before the scheduled departure time of the train concerned to enable the Respondents finish all preparatory work in time. 

Appellants have also not  placed on record any tangible proof to suggest that their websites are updated even after preparation of the final reservation chart.  Therefore, if the Complainants were under the impression that their tickets were not confirmed, hardly any fault can be found with them.  In any case, while the formal written refund claim was made just few days after expiry of the prescribed time limit and given that no such specific clause is there to the effect that staking a delayed refund claim would result in repudiation of the same, in our considered opinion, the Railway authorities treated the Respondents most unfairly.  

Looking from these aspects, though we found not much infirmity with the impugned order, it seems that the Ld. District Forum held the IRCTC liable along with the Eastern Railway authorities to pay the decreetal sum in utter disregard of the fact that the entire proceeds of railway tickets reached the coffers of the Eastern Railway authorities and the IRCTC merely acted as an interface between the passengers and Railway authorities in lieu of fixed commission.  We, therefore, deem it fit and proper to relieve them of all liabilities in the matter.

The Appeals are, accordingly, disposed of.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

Appeal Nos. A/243/2016 and A/345/2016 stand dismissed and allowed, respectively.  The impugned order is modified to the extent that the IRCTC need not pay any decreetal amount to the Respondents/Complainants, but the entire decreetal amount would have to be paid by the Eastern Railway.