DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI

                                                                                    C.C.NO.63 OF 2022

                                                                                                 Date of Filing  : 02.11.2022

                                     Date of Order : 26.12.2022

Smt. Renuka Pradhan

W/O: Dillip Kumar Pradhan

AT- Madikunda Police Colony

PO/PS- Phulbani town,

             Dist- Kandhamal.                           …………………….. Complainant.

Versus.

1.Sri Janardan Mishra,

Pinaki Computer Centre

AT- In front of SBI

PO/PS- Phulbani Town

DIST- Kandhamal

2.The IRCTC

Hermes 1 Tickets private ltd

Saikrupa, Plot No.30A

First floor, SIDCO

Thiruvika Industrial Estate,

Guindy Chennai, 600032               ………………………….. Opp. Parties

Present: Sri Purna Chandra Mishra    - President.

                           Sri Sudhakar Senapothi     - Member.

For the Complainant: Self

For O.P. 1  :   Self

        O.P.2 :    Ex-parte

JUDGEMENT

Sri Sudhakar Senapothi, Member

            The complainant Renuka Pradhan has filed this case alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP for not refunding the cost of the cancelled tickets in spite of repeated approaches and praying therein for direction to the O.P.s to refund a sum of Rs.3300/- towards the cost of the tickets and to pay cost and compensation for the harassment caused to her.

1. Brief fact leading to the case is that the complainant had booked six railway tickets for her journey from Sai P.Nilayam to Behampur on Dt. 01.09.2022 through online system in train No.18464 in sleeper class and P.N.R.No was 4331179108. Because of certain problems she cancelled the ticket in the counter of O.P.1 where from she had booked the ticket but unfortunately even after cancellation of the tickets the O.P. did not refund the cost of the cancelled ticket for which she was compelled to file this case before this Commission for the reliefs as discussed above.
2. After receipt of notice the O.P No.1 appeared in person and filed his written version. In his written version the O.P No.1 stated that the complainant had booked ticket from his shop. On 08.08.2022 she came to his shop and requested to cancel the name of one passenger and on the basis of her request cancelled the name of the concerned passenger. Again on 14.08.2022 she cancelled the entire ticket but due to technical error in the IRCTC website the message was displayed ”as unable to process your request”. So he immediately contacted customer care and requested them to cancel ticket after intimating regarding the technical error on 14.08.2022 at 11am. He also intimated through email to O.P.2 to cancelled the ticket. Even after requesting the customer care regarding the case over phone and after sending the email to the O.P No.2 the cost of the tickets were not refunded and as he has taken all possible steps to get back the cost of the cancelled tickets no amount of deficiency in service lies with him and  he prays for dismissal of the case against him.
3. The O.P No.2 did not appear non challenged the allegations raised against him even though notice was sent to him in his e-mail ID. Therefore he was set exparte.
4. The only point for adjudication of this case is whether the complainant is entitled to any relief in view of her allegations of deficiency in service against the O.Ps.

It is seen from the documents on records that the complainant had booked a    ticket for 01.09.2022 bearing P.N.R.No.4331179108 for Rs.3334.80/-. It is also seen from the documents filed by the O.P No.1 that the tickets were cancelled on two occasions and as the booking site did not receive the commands for  cancellation of the tickets on date 14.08.2022 he sent email to the O.P No.2 to cancel the tickets in their email ID stating therein the technical problems relating to cancellation of the ticket and also intimated the facts to the customer care with a request to cancel  the tickets and this process of conversation continued for around 20minutes. This facts is supported by the email date 14.08.2022, 16.08.2022, 09.11.2022 and 10 11.2022 and 11.11.2022. It is clear from the email sent by the O.P No.1 to O.P. No.2 that he has made all attempts to get back the amounts related to cancellation of tickets of the complainant. So in our considered view there is no deficiency in service in the part of the O.P No.1. So far as O.P No.2 is concerned it is clear from the documents and records as discussed about that there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P No.2 and he is liable to compensate the petitioner for the loss sustained by the complainant and hence the order.

                                                                                               ORDER

The complaint petition is allowed against the O.P.2 exparte and dismissed against O.P No.1. The O.P No.2 is directed refund a sum of Rs.3334.80/-(three thousand three hundred thirty four and paise eighty rupees)only  to the complainant and is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.3000/-(three thousand)only towards deficiency in service and harassment. The order is to be complied within period of 30days from the date of communication of the order. Parties to bear their own cost.         

                                                            Computerized & corrected by me.     

                I Agree

            PRESIDENT                                                              MEMBER

Pronounced in the open Commissioner today on this 26th day of December  2022 in the presence of the parties.

                 PRESIDENT                                                                     MEMBER