BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BENGALURU

1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027.

CC.No.1448/2018

DATED THIS THE 7^th NOVEMBER OF 2019

PRESENT

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K., BAL, LLM, PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, B.A., LLB, MEMBER

ORDER

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K., PRESIDENT

            This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite parties (herein after called as OPs), under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The Complainant prays to direct the OPs to pay Rs.7435/- towards actual train fare paid, to pay interest of Rs.2,000/-, to pay cost of stationaries, stamps etc., of Rs.20,000/- and  cost of Rs.1,00,000/-  totaling Rs.1,29,435/-.

2. The brief facts of the complaint is as under:

The Complainant submitted that, the complainant, his wife and his daughter-in-law had booked two train journey tickets with PNR No.4323470161 by train No.12509 for the journey on 14.10.2016 and PNR Nos.4223586927 and 4842745698 by train No.12551 for journey on 15.10.2016 by online payment. The complainant further submitted that both the journey tickets were confirmed on 14.10.2016 and the complainant cancelled the PNR No.4323470161 for journey on 14.10.2016. The necessary TDR was issued by IRCTC (Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd.,) and a coaching refund system registration having No.205161001142 was issued.

2a.      The complainant further submitted that the OPs have withhold the refund on a frivolous, imaginary, fanciful and criminal observation and certification by the concerned TTE of train No.12509 leaving Bangalore Cantonment Station. On 14.10.2016, the berths was allotted to the complainant and his family, but in actual, they were empty, as the complainant and his family travelled by train No.12551 leaving Yeswantpur station on 15.10.2016. Further submitted that it was impossible for same passengers to travel by 2 trains running simultaneously and concurrently. The said fact has been repeatedly emphasized by the IRCTC and asked for the refund, but the OPs were failed to refund the amount. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint.

3.       After service of the notice, Opposite Parties 1 to 3 have appeared before this forum and filed their objections. In the objection, the OP-1 submits that, the TTE of all trains running on their respective routes are officials of the Indian Railways and not employed in Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd., (IRCTC). The grievance of the complainant is against the concerned TTE who is the employee of the 2^nd and 3^rd OP, but not against the OP-1. The OP-1 further submitted that on the request of the complainant, the OP-1 requested the Chief Commercial Manager/Refund, North Frontier Railway to re-examine the case process for the refund of the amount vide letters dt.4.7.2017 and 4.12.2017.  The North Frontier Railway has neither responded to both the letters nor taken any sort of action. It is also submitted that the Chief Commercial Manager/Refund, North Frontier Railway is the proper authority to deal with the refunds and with this case. Every effort has been made by the OP-1 on behalf of the complainant, to make the Indian Railways to reconsider the case, but the OPs 2 and 3 have failed to do so.

3a.      The OP-1 further submitted that IRCTC only provides access to railway passenger reservation system through its server and internet connectivity to book tickets through it. When the user/passenger books railway tickets through IRCTC the amount paid is automatically transferred to the Indian Railways and similarly when the refund is made by the concerned railways authorities as per the extant Railway Board’s Refund Rules, the said amount is automatically transferred to the user’s account through which booking was made. The user/passenger is expected to apply for refund to Chief Commercial Manager of Railways (Refunds). The concerned Zonal Railways under whom the last destination station of train falls as per Extant Railway Refund Rules shall be the final deciding authority. This fact is well within the knowledge of the complainant. The user/passengers who book the tickets online are expected to read the terms and conditions which they are bound by.

3b.      The OP-1 further submitted that the important clauses are reflected on the IRCTCs E-ticketing service issued electronic reservation slip (personal user). The clause-9 of this states that while TDR refund requests are filed and registered on IRCTC website, they are processed by Zonal Railways as per Railway Refund Rules. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP-1 and prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4.        The OPs 2 and 3 has filed their version and submitted that e-tickets bearing PNR No. 4223586927 and 4323470161 were obtained from IRCTC on payment of requisite fare by Sri.Kamal Nayan Singhanai from his personal IRCTC login, who is not the complainant in this case. Further, the e-ticket bearing PNR No.4842745698 was obtained from IRCTC on payment of requisite fare by Sri.Kamal Singhania from his personal IRCTC login. The relationship between the complainant and ticket booking person is not within the knowledge of OP-1 & 2. Hence, the complainant does not have any locus-standi to claim refund of fare for e-tickets which were not booked by him or any relief from the Hon’ble Forum for the alleged deficiency in service. The details of the e-tickets are as under:

Details of PNR 4323470161 booked on 6.9.16; Fare paid Rs.7,435/-

Details of PNR 4223586927 booked on 6.9.16; Fare paid Rs.2,155/-

Details of PNR 4842745698 booked on 15.8.16; Fare paid Rs.5,340/-

            4a.      The OPs 2 and 3 further submitted that Kamal Nayan Singhania had claimed refund of ticket fare of Rs.7,435/- paid to IRCTC for performing journey in train No.12509 by filing an online refund claim or ticket deposit receipt on 14.10.2016 at 2037 hrs. The scheduled departure of train No.12509 is 2340 hrs. As per refund rules, under normal circumstances, confirmed ticket should be cancelled 04 hours before the scheduled departure of the train for obtaining refund of fare.  The cancellation of confirmed ticket is not permissible within 04 hours of the scheduled departure of the train. The said rules have come into force from 12.11.2015 and the same was published by Railway administration regarding the refund rules.

4b.      The OPs 2 and 3 further submitted that Sri. Kamal Nayan Singhanai booked ticket bearing No. 4323470161 was claimed at 2037 hrs of 14.10.2016 which is within 04 hours of the scheduled departure of the train. While filing TDR for all 3 persons reasons stated “Travelled without proper ID proof”. As per the rules, the ticket bearing PNR 4323470161 ought to have been cancelled before 1940 hrs of 14.10.2016, as per refund rules.  Since Sri.Kamal Nayan Singhanai has not cancelled the ticket before 1940 hrs, hence, Sri.Kamal Nayan Singhanai is not entitled for any refund.  Further, while filing TDR, the persons have “Travelled without proper ID proof” on this account also Sri.Kamal Nayan Singhanai is not eligible for any refund. Hence, the claim of the Sri.Kamal Nayan Singhanai was repudiated as no merit was found in the refund claim. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint are false and baseless and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and the OPs have filed their affidavit reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and objections.  Both parties have submitted their written arguments.  Both parties have produced documents which were marked.  We have heard the arguments of complainant and OPs and we have gone through the oral and documentary evidence of both parties scrupulously and posted the case for order.

5. Based on the above materials, the following points arise for our consideration;  

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer which comes under section 2 (1) (d) of CP Act?
2. Whether the Complainant has proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP, if so, whether he is entitled for the relief sought for?

3.  What order?

6. Our findings on the above points are as under:

Point No.1:  In the negative

Point No.2:  Does not survive for consideration

Point No.3: As per the order below

REASONS

7.        On perusal of the pleadings of the complaint, objection of the OPs and affidavit evidence and documents produced by both the parties, it is found that one Sri.Kamal Nayan Singhanai had booked 3 tickets through online on 6.9.2016 by paying 7,435/-. The details of the ticket are hereunder:

Details of PNR 4323470161 booked on 6.9.16; Fare paid Rs.7,435/-

It is the case of the complainant that he had not travelled on 14.10.2016 and seeking for refund of the amount, but the OPs have not refunded the amount. The OPs 2 and 3 raised an objection before this Forum that the complainant had not booked the ticket and he has not approached the OPs 2 and 3 for refund of the amount. Hence, the complainant does not have locus-standing to claim for refund of the e-ticket amount which were not booked by him. The OPs further submitted that as per the refund rules, confirmed ticket should be cancelled 04 hours before the scheduled departure of the train for obtaining refund of fare. In the instant case, Sri.Kamal Nayan Singhanai approached the OPs 2 and 3 beyond 4 hours of the scheduled departure of the train. The departure time is 23:40 hours, but the Sri.Kamal Nayan Singhanai filed TDR for refund of the amount on 23:37 hours.

8. On perusal of the documents, it is found that one Sri.Kamal Nayan Singhanai had booked 3 tickets on 6.9.2016 for the journey on 14.10.2016 by making online payment of Rs.7,435/-. Further, it is found that Sri.Kamal Nayan Singhanai had seek for refund of the amount, but the OPs have repudiated the claim of Sri.Kmala Nayan Singhanai on 24.03.2017/Ex.R6. Therefore, the complainant cannot have a grievance against the OPs regarding deficiency in service on the part of the OPs by not refunding the amount as request made by Sri.Kamal Nayan Singhanai. Hence, the complainant cannot step into shoes of Sri.Kamal Nayan Singhanai as the complainant alleging deficiency in service against the OPs. Hence, the complainant cannot be termed as aggrieved person. Only aggrieved person shall have legally and statutory right to file a complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for infringement of his right. Hence, the complainant not being an aggrieved person cannot enforce his right. Further, the complainant does not have locus-standi to seek the remedy as claimed. Secondly nowhere in the records, it is found that any authorization was given to the complainant to represent the case before this Forum. Therefore, the complainant is not defined as consumer under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the result, the Complainant has failed to establish the deficiency in service against the OPs. Accordingly, we answered the point no.1 in the negative.

8. Point no.2: In view of our findings on point no.1, this issue does not survive for consideration.

9. Point no.3: In view of our findings on point no.1 & 2, the Complainant deserves to get the following:

ORDER

The complaint filed by the Complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.

          Supply free copy of this order to both parties. 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this, the 7^th November of 2019)

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Sri.Gobardhan Singhania, who being the Complainant was examined. 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Witness examined on behalf of Opposite Party-1 by way of affidavit:

Kishore Satya., who being the Manager of OP-1 was examined. 

Witness examined on behalf of Opposite Party-2 & 3 by way of affidavit:

Sri.Raushan Kumar, working as Divisional Commercial Manager, South Western Railway, Bangalore. 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of OPs.2 & 3