Harassment on account of cancellation of confirmed ticket by the OPs has caused to lodge this complaint u/s 12 of CP Act, 1986.
The complaint in a nutshell goes that the complainant Biswajit Saha had booked a ticket on 22.10.2017 for journey by Balurghat - Howrah Express dt. 23.10.2017 through IRCTC Apps in Tatakal quota at about 11:00 a.m. on 22.10.2017. The complainant got a confirmed ticket having PNR No. 6407273143 and berth No. and coach No.S-3/18/MB. But a few minutes later, he got a message from IRCTC canceling his ticket and with a refund instruction of Rs.360/-deducted against IRCTC Txn No. ID 100001023094077 on 22.10.2017. Immediately he tried to contact with the IRCTC official over telephone and being failed he sent a message at 2:23 p.m. to the IRCTC authority expressing his helpless condition for the ticket being cancelled and requested to make some arrangement so that he can attend his class at Rice Institute to which he is a student and also an appointment with Doctor for his neurological problem. But, he got no reply immediately and received an e-mail reply at about 11:44 pm on 23.10.2017 giving some official instructions for giving refund of his booked amount.
The OP No.1 Assistant Station Master, Balurghat in his written statement filed to this Forum has claimed that he is a mis-joinder in the instant case as the ticket was booked online through IRCTC Apps and the IRCTC is the proper authority to reply to the complainant.
The OP Nos. 2 & 3 through Lawyer had submitted in their written version wherein they had stated that the ticket was not booked due to some technical reasons but an amount of Rs.360/- had been deducted by the IRCTC Txn ID 100001023094077 on 22.10.2017 at about 11:05:59 a.m. The amount so deducted has already been refunded and there is no deficiency in service on their part.
On argument Ld. Counsel for the OP Nos. 2 & 3 has raised a question of maintainability of the instant case under this Forum as Section 13 & Section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, has barred any Civil Court for adjudication of any claim from the railway authority. They have filed corresponding part of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 regarding the jurisdiction and authority of this Forum for adjudicating the instant case. The complainant himself on argument stated to this Forum that though he had got the refund of the booked amount in full but due to cancellation of ticket he could not attend to his Doctor as previously appointed for neurological disease and also attend his class at Rice Institute on 24.4.2018. This has caused his physical harassment, mental agony for which he should be compensated.
Points for discussion:
- Whether the case is maintainable in this Forum?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Railway Authority?
DECISION WITH REASONS
The relevant part of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 filed by the OP Nos. 2 &3 had been taken into consideration. Section 15 of the said act tells “On and from the appointed day, no court or other authority shall have, or be entitled to, exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to the matters referred to in [sub-sections (1) and (1A)] of section 13.” The provision as stated in sub-sections (1) and (1A) of section 13 of the said act tells everything about non-delivery of goods, loss, destruction, damage and deterioration and a reference to accident claim under the Railway Act, 1989. But, the instant case does not cover anything described in the sub-sec. (1) and (1A) of sec. 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The present complaint is regarding the root of physical harassment and mental pain and agony for which the compensation of Rs.50,000/- has been claimed by the complainant.
The railway authorities in their statement had denied issuing of confirmed ticket but the complainant as a document had filed his confirmed ticket to this Forum. So, it is surprising how the railway authority had denied the facts.
The railway authority introduced Tatkal Scheme for booking the ticket for an urgent need of a person. So, when a person has booked the ticket on Tatkal Scheme he must have some urgent need to make the journey. The railway authority also keeps a percentage of tickets reserved for Tatkal booking so that a man in urgent need can book a ticket with some extra charges more than the normal price of a ticket to make his journey. In the instant case the railway authority though refunded the booking price but did not pay any heed to the principle of tatkal facility. We are in abject surprise in cancellation of a confirmed ticket without showing any reason arbitrarily by the OPs.
In the context of the earlier discussion we are of the tile view that the IRCTC the OP No. 3 had caused physical harassment and mental pain to the complainant through their deficiency in service in canceling the confirmed ticket bought on tatkal scheme as averred in the instant complaint. This Forum had conceded to the written version of the OP No. 1 and has acquitted the OP No. 1 of the instant case.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
The OP No.3 be primarily liable for deficiency in service and the complainant will be entitled to get the compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/- from the OP No. 3.
OP No.3 is directed to pay the said amount to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which the compensation amount will bear interest @ 10% p.a. till the full realization of the said amount.
The case be and the same succeed on contest.
Let the copy of this order be furnished to the parties concerned forthwith free of cost.
