CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,PALAKKAD

Dated this the 1^st  December, 2015

PRESENT :  SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT

               :  SMT. SUMA. K.P, MEMBER                      Date  of filing : 30/09/2014

CC /147/2014

Shanta.J @ M.P.Santhakumari,

D/o.late.C.K.G.Nair,

VI/205, “Shantashree”,                                             :        Complainant

Keralassery, Palakkad.

Pin.678 641.

(By Adv.V.C.Janardhanan)

             Vs

1. The General Manager,  

    Southern Railway, Chennai-670 001                      :        Opposite parties

    (By Adv.T.R.Rajagopalan)

2. The Chairman & Managing Director,

    Indian Railways Catering & Tourism Corporation,

    New Delhi-110  001

3. The Divisional Railway Manager,

    Palakkad Division, Southern Railway,

    Palakkad – 678 002

4. P.S.Narayanan Kutty, TTI/SL/SRR,

    C/o.Divisional Railway Manager,

    Palakkad Division,  Palakkad – 678 002

5. C.Shaji, TTI/SL/SRR,

    C/o.Divisional Railway Manager,

    Palakkad Division,  Palakkad – 678 002

O R D E R

By Smt. Suma. K.P, Member,

The complaint is filed for damages to the tune of Rs.1,40,390/- caused due to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant booked Two AC-3A tickets on 27/10/2013 for her proposed journey on 22/11/2013 by ERS-PUNE Express Train No.22149, through internet by availing the service of 2^nd opposite party ”IRCTC”.  The said e-tickets were not confirmed till the departure of the train so she along with her husband purchased general tickets from the counter for their journey and boarded in to the third AC Coach first and then move to the sleeper coach under the relief that the tickets shall be converted to sleeper or A/C reserve tickets by paying the difference of the fare to the TTE.  But the concerned TTE in charge of those coaches did not allow them to travel in those coaches even during the day hours and threatened them to evict by using force.  So the complainant and her husband were forced to travel in the general coach and that too 10 coaches away from the sleeper coach which caused much mental agony and hardships to the complainant and her husband.  Apart from that she complained that she booked e-tickets sufficiently early even then the same was not confirmed, and caused much inconvenience to her.  The complainant also wanted for implementation of proper manner of the scheme for booking e-tickets and getting the same at the easiest method.  She also wants sufficient time for booking Tatkal reservation.  For the above all reasons she termed deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and claimed damages to the tune of Rs.1,40,390/- on different heads.

The notice was issued to the opposite parties for appearance. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed  version denying all the allegations leveled against them and also the deficiency of service on their part.  The particulars of the ticket including the PNR Number mentioned in para 3 of the complaint is not the one relating to the complainant.  On verifying the records, it is seen that the said ticket with PNR number 415-6640597 relates to a ticket booked from Katpadi junction to Samragachi in sleeper class by Train No.06602 dtd 31/10/2013.  The allegations in para 4 that the passengers whose reservations are not confirmed will be treated as ticketless passengers only after the refund is ordered is not correct.  The rules regarding booking of tickets by internet and the procedure for cancellation or refund of charges in respect of unconfirmed tickets are governed by rules framed by the Railway Board from time to time and they are duly published in the Railway timetable itself.  As per the said rules if the berth is not confirmed in respect of wait listed tickets before the chart is prepared, the passengers have got the right to apply online for refund of the tickets.  This can be done either before the departure of the train or after that.  The said request will be duly procured at central office at New delhi and the amount will be refunded by transferring the amount to the bank account furnished by the passengers.  Even if the passenger does not claim for refund the central office will refund the amount as soon as on the basis of data is received at Central Office.  This transfer will be done in the usual course within 48 hours of the preparation of the chart.  In this case the refund was effected by transfer to the bank account on 26/11/2013.  There is no deficiency of service in effecting the refund. The delay of 4 days is the normal time required for collecting the data regarding the unconfirmed tickets from each station.  These are all done  not naturally, through internet automatically.  As such there is no deficiency on the part of 2^nd opposite party or their employees.  Complainant admittedly purchased ordinary tickets and boarded to the train in the reserved coach which was unauthorized.  When the concerned TTE in charge i.e opposite parties 4 and 5 noticed that the complainant was travelling in the reserved coach they told them that they are not entitled to travel in that coach without a confirm ticket.  But as they have purchased an ordinary ticket they were asked to move to the general compartment. The allegation in the complaint is that opposite parties 4 and 5 used rude language and abused the complainant and that they suffered mental agony are absolutely incorrect and denied by the opposite parties.  The e-tickets purchased by the complainant were not confirmed only because vacant berth were not available.  The fact that the tickets were not confirmed is known to the complainant in the charts itself published in the junction.  The complainant can also verify the status of the tickets in their mobile itself.  The complaint is frivolous and vexatious and the various claim for compensation are without any basis and the opposite parties are not liable to pay the same.  Hence the complaint has to be dismissed.

Both the parties have filed their chief affidavit along with supporting documents. Ext.A1-A8 and Ext.B1 and B2 were marked.   Complainant was examined as PW1 and opposite parties 4 and 5 was examined as DW 1 and 2.    Evidence was closed and  matter was heard.

The following issues are to be considered.

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. If so, what are the reliefs and cost? 

 ISSUE No. 1

First allegation is made against the 2^nd opposite party, IRCTC is that they failed to refund the ticket within 72 hours after the departure of the train.  The ticket amount was debited in her account only after 72 hours.  Opposite parties contented that the booking and the cancellation of e-ticket were done automatically by the server of the 2^nd opposite party.  If there was any delay for refund of the amount, caused only due to the server problem and that to beyond the control of the 2^nd opposite party.  The opposite parties also submitted that the complainant had no complaint for the delay for the refund of e-ticket amount at the time of cross examination.  The allegation of the complainant was that she had booked her e-tickets on 27/10/2013 for the proposed journey of 22/11/2013.  Since she booked the tickets sufficiently early the tickets should have been confirmed.  If  such tickets were not confirmed atleast the opposite parties should allow them to travel in the same class by receiving the difference in fare by the TTE.  She should be allowed to travel by general tickets either in 3^rd AC or in sleeper class coaches just by receiving the difference in fare.  She should be allowed to travel in reserved coaches during the day hours.  Since the complainant is a senior citizen they should not be asked to travel in general coach by general tickets which had caused much inconvenience to them.   The TTE had threatened them for evicting them from the reserved coach by using police force.  During cross examination complainant admitted that she had sufficient knowledge with regard to the procedure for booking of e-ticket cancellation etc. She had also the knowledge that by using e-ticket,  the passenger should not even enter into the train, if such entry should be treated as ticketless  passenger, and the same is made mentioned in the e-ticket and also in the railway time table.  She had purchased general tickets from the railway counter for avoiding such contingency.  They were advised from the railway counter that by paying the difference in the fare to the TTE concerned, they can avail seats in the reserved coaches.  The complainant had admitted that by using general ticket the passengers should travel in general coach alone.  While examining DW2 and DW3 they had admitted that as per the rules the TTE may allow the passengers who hold sleeper tickets to travel in the reserved coach if the vacancy is available.  They had further deposed that if the vacancy is available the RAC passengers will be given priority to convert into sleeper class and after considering them subsequently, will consider the wait listing passengers who purchased tickets from the counter.  General ticket will not come under that category.   They have also deposed that they have not threatened the complainant or her husband but the complainant’s husband threatened them by shouting abusing words.  Complainant filed an application as IA 188/2015 seeking cross production of certified copies of reservation chart in B1 3 A/c coach of ERS_PUNE Express(No.22149)on 22/11/2013.  The opposite parties had filed counter stating that this has nothing to do with the complainant’s case.  The opposite parties are obliged to preserve the reservation charts for 6 months only.  It has been destroyed after that period and is not available to reproduce before the Forum.   This argument cannot be taken in to consideration, since the complaint has been filed within 6 months from the date of journey. Opposite parties ought to have produced the reservation chart before the Forum to prove that seats were not available to the complainants on that particular date.  It would have been the best piece of evidence to substantiate the case of the Opposite parties.  Since the opposite parties failed to produce the said document an adverse inference can be drawn in favour of the complainant.  The complainants were not provided seats for the journey inspite of availability.  More over from Ext.A1 document it is obvious that the current status of the complainant and her husband shown as waiting list 6 and 7 on the date of journey.  If that be so the TTE should have provided seats to the complainant and her husband  according to the availability.  The best piece of evidence to show that the seats were not available was the reservation chart on the particular day.  Without producing the said document we are not in a position to believe the contention put forward by the opposite parties.  The opposite parties admits that the complainant was evicted from the reserved compartments and were asked to board in the general compartment.  This had caused much pain and inconvenience to the complainant. 

In the light of the above discussions we are of the view that the opposite parties had committed deficiency of service on their part.  Hence the complaint is allowed and we direct the opposite parties to refund the general ticket fare just  amounting to Rs.390/-(Rupees Three hundred and ninety only)  along with Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three thousand only)  as compensation for the inconvenience and discomfort caused to the complainant and her husband.  The rest of the allegations made in the complaint are the policy matters of the railways and that is not coming under the purview of deficiency of service or Consumer Protection Act.  The complaint is allowed as above.   The aforesaid amount shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which complainant is entitled to get 9% interest for the compensation amount from the date of order till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 1^st  day of December, 2015.

                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                   Smt. Shiny.P.R

                                                                     President

                                                                         Sd/-                                                                                                      Smt. Suma. K.P

                                                                       Member

A P P E N D I X

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 –Passenger Current Status Enquiry for PNR No.415-6540597 as on 22/11/2013 (2125 hrs) dtd.21/11/2013

Ext.A2 – Copy of cancelled 3^rd AC e-ticket

Ext.A3 – Unreserved General ticket No.941491661 dtd.22/11/203 and return journey ticket  Madgaon to Shornur dtd.30/11/2013

Ext.A4 -Tickets of unreserved passengers accommodation (on extra fare) in Express Trains during Day Journeys.

Ext.A5 - RTI query by the complainant seeking relevant details as regards the subject journey dt.03/04/2014

Ext.A6 series- RTI query by the complainant seeking relevant details as regards the subject journey

Ext.A7 series- Reply of RTI queries dtd.10/02/2014, 06/03/2014 & 17/03/2014

Ext.A8- Reservation Rules (Computer print out)

Witness marked on the side of complainant

PW1-Santha

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Ext.B1-Railway Time Table Book

Ext.B2- Refund Rules and TDR Filing w.e.f 01/07/2013

Witness examined on the side of opposite parties

DW1-Govindhankutty

DW-2-P.S.Narayanankutty

Cost Allowed

No cost allowed.