Delhi

StateCommission

FA/1178/2013

IRCTC LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUBRATA BHAUMIK - Opp.Party(s)

06 May 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: Delhi

(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision: 06.05.2016

 

First Appeal- 1178/13

 

        In the Matter of:

 

                Indian Railway Catering

          Tourism Corporation Ltd. (IRCTC)

          Through its General Manager

          At: 9^th Floor, Bank of Baroda Building,

          16, Parliament Street,

          New Delhi-110001

……Appellant     Versus   Subrata Bhaumik At: 4B/24, 3rd Floor, Old Rajender Nagar, New Delhi-110060                                                                              …….Respondent

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the   judgment? 

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

1.                     This is an appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short ‘the Act’) wherein challenge is made to order dated 3.10.13 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, New Delhi (in short, the ‘District Forum’) in CC No.564/12 filed by the respondents/complainant whereby the Ld. District Forum has allowed the aforesaid complaint.

2.             The brief facts of the case are as under:-

                A complaint under Section 12 of the Act was filed by the respondent herein i.e. complainant before the Ld. District Forum alleging that he had booked the tatkal tickets from an agent on 2.11.10 for six persons for the train Ranikhet Express from Ranipur to Delhi in sleeper coach. The date of travel was 03.11.2010. It was alleged that the tickets were not confirmed and were in waiting list from Sl. No. 25 to 29.  Accordingly the respondent/complainant had sent a  SMS to Railway Enquiry Tel. No. 139 on 3.11.10 to know the PNR status. It was alleged that on 03.11.2010, the respondent/complainant got a reply on his mobile phone from No. 139 at 6:09 P.M. that “No Room Available” and chart was prepared on 03.11.2010. The timings of the departure of the train was 8.00 p.m. Having left with no option, the respondent/complainant alongwith five other persons came to Delhi by Bus. It was alleged that his mother had suffered a brain stroke. It is stated that certain tests of his mother were to be conducted urgently for which they had to visit Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi. Next day the respondent/complainant went to the agent to get the money back for non confirmed ticket. He was informed that ticket was confirmed and as such the same was not refundable. The respondent/complainant approached the concerned authorities and request for refund of money but the money was not refunded. He had alleged having made correspondence continuously with appellant/OP for refund of tickets.  The correspondence was also annexed with the complaint. Aggrieved with inaction on the part of the appellant herein i.e. OP before the District Forum, respondent/complainant had filed a complaint case wherein prayer was made for refund of tickets of Rs.975/- alongwith compensation of Rs.25,000/-.

3.             The appellant/OP filed reply alleging that the respondent/complainant had booked the ticket through agent of IRCTC in Tatkal kota in train No.5024 in Nov., 2010. He applied for refund of TDR on 12.11.10. The ticket was not used. As per policy the request was forwarded to Chief Commercial manager/Refunds, Northern Railway  on 22.11.2010 and reminder was sent on 15.04.2011 and the Zonal Chief Manager repudiated the claim as refund was not admissible on confirmed ticket issued in Tatkal Kota.

4.             Both the parties had filed evidence in the form of affidavits before the Ld. District Forum.

5.             After considering the material on record, the Ld. District Forum allowed the claim. The relevant finding is reproduced as under:

        “In the present case the TDR was issued on 12.11.2010 the refund applied on 12.11.2010 and till now in 2013 at the time of argument the complainant has not been returned the fare. This shows the total collapse of the efficiency of Railways for refund of unused tickets. The OP has also taken a false stand that tickets are not confirmed after chart is prepared. The complainant shows that he was informed by Railways that there was no seat available as chart has been prepared. The reply shows a different story. It states that the tickets was confirmed after the preparation of the chart which complainant came to know after performing journey by bus.

 

All this clearly establishes the harassment suffered by the complainant along with others due to a unfair service of railways. We hold the OP guilty of deficiency and direct to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant which is inclusive of the value of the ticket, compensation for deficiency in service, harassment, inconvenience and litigation expenses”.

6.             Aggrieved with the aforesaid order present appeal is filed.

7.             The contention of the appellant/OP is that the ticket was confirmed as such respondent/complainant was not entitled for refund of amount and his claim was rightly repudiated.

8.             On the other hand the respondent/complainant has argued that he had been harassed by the appellant/OP for the past more than five years. It is argued that the booking was done in the year 2010 and respondent/complainant had read a message on his Mobile Phone through Phone No. 139 wherein the status of respondent/complainant was shown as “No Room Available” and it was recorded at 6.09 p.m. It was also shown that the chart had been prepared. The respondent/complainant has also referred page 69/61 of the paper book which is a RTI reply dated 05.09.2012 of appellant/OP to respondent/complainant wherein it is stated as under:

        ‘SMS on 139 is fully reliable. About 1 lakhs SMS Pull on daily basis is being sent through Rail Sampark 139 to the customers’

9.             We have considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. The message given on the Mobile Phone of respondent/complainant from Phone No. 139 was that the awating ticket was not confirmed and the chart had already been prepared. The printed message is on record. The same is not challenged by appellant/OP.  Considering the material on record, on 03.11.2010 at 6:09 P.M. the respondent/complainant was informed that his status was not confirmed and the chart had already been prepared. In these circumstances, the appellant/OP ought to have refunded the tickets.

10.            We find no illegality in the impugned order. The respondent/complainant has suffered unnecessarily for about 6 years at the hands of appellant/OP. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.  Appeal stands dismissed.

                A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs as per rules.

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member