1.       Delay condoned.

2.       This Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. (for short “IRCTC”), is directed against the order dated 06.05.2016, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi at New Delhi (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 1178 of 2013.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order dated 03.10.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, New Delhi (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. CC/564/12.  By the said order, the District Forum, while accepting the Complaint, filed by the Respondent herein, alleging deficiency in service on the part of IRCTC in not refunding the amount paid by him for the unused ticket, purchased by him under the Tatkal Reservation Scheme, for travel from Ranipur to Delhi in a sleeper coach on 03.11.2010, had directed IRCTC to pay to the Complainant a compensation of ₹25,000/-, which was inclusive of value of ticket, harassment, inconvenience and litigation expenses.  

3.       Having heard learned Counsel appearing for IRCTC and perused the documents on record, we are of the view that having regard to the quantum the total amount involved, viz. ₹25,000/-, as well as the fact that finding by both the Fora below to the effect that the Complainant and his family members did not board the Train because even two hours before the scheduled departure time of the Train, their ticket had not been confirmed, we do not find it to be a fit case for interference in exercise of our Revisional Jurisdiction.  As stated above, both the Forums below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that as per the last information furnished to the Complainant, his reservation had not been confirmed, on the basis of the text messages on the SMS received by the Complainant on “139” service, operated by IRCTC itself, indicating that up-to 17:36 hours and 18:09 hours, while the scheduled time of departure of the train was 20:00 hours, his reservation was not confirmed.  In the absence of any challenge to the said finding as being perverse on any ground and bearing in mind the fact that admittedly the reservation chart is prepared at least three hours before the scheduled time of departure, as affirmed by the learned Counsel, on facts, the decision of the Fora below cannot be faulted. 

5.       Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed in limine, keeping open the question whether having regard to the arrangement between IRCTC and Indian Railways, who is liable to compensate the Complainant for the said lapse.