State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sudhir Telang vs Irctcltd on 22 August, 2023
Daily Order M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 555 OF 2017 (Arising out of order dated 10.03.2017 passed in C.C.No.327/2014 by the District Commission, Bhopal) SUDHIR TELANG, S/O SHRI G. K. DEO TELANG, R/O C-48, NEHRU NAGAR, BHOPAL (M.P.)-462 003 ... APPELLANT. Versus 1. GENERAL MANAGER, IRCTC LIMITED, INTERNET TICKETING CENTER, IRCA BUILDING, STATE ENTRY ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 055. 2. IRCTC LIMTED, WEST ZONE, BANK OF INDIA BUILDING SECOND FLOOR, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.) 3. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, (DRM) WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY, HABIBGANJ, BHOPAL (M.P.) ... RESPONDENTS. BEFORE: HON'BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI : PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY : MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES : Appellant is present in person. None for the respondent no.1 and 2. Shri Deepesh Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no.3. O R D E R (Passed On 22.08.2023)
The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member:
This appeal by the complainant/appellant is directed against the order dated 10.03.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (for short 'District Commission') in -2- C.C.No.327/2014, whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by him.
2. In short, facts of the case as narrated by the complainant are that the complainant had got online reservation done on 11.03.2014 for journey on 20.03.2014 from Bhopal to Pune via train number 01478 (LKN PUNE Special) in AC-2 for himself and his wife. It is submitted that on 20.03.2014 at about 17.30 hours he made an enquiry on 139 to know the status of the train timings on which it was informed that the train is running late by 3 hours and expected to arrive at 21.15 hrs. Thereafter, again when he enquired on 139 at 20.30 hrs, it was informed that train is now late by 5.30 hrs and expected arrival is 00.15 hrs on 21.03.2014. Lastly when he enquired at 23.00 hrs it was informed that the train is late by 6.30 hrs and expected arrival is 1.00 am on 21.03.2014. As per information when he reached station to board the train at about 12.10am on 21.03.2014 i.e. 50 minutes before scheduled delayed departure but he came to know that the train had already departed. It is alleged that due to misleading information on Enquiry no.139 he could not board the train.
3. It is further submitted that at about 1.05 am on 21.03.2014 he filed TDR for refund of fare but the refund was not made. On 17.04.2014 he received a mail that since you have filed TDR after the prescribed time limit, -3- your case is regretted by railways. Therefore, the complainant alleging deficiency in service on part of opposite parties-Railways approached the District Commission, seeking relief.
4. The opposite party no.1 and 2 IRCTC in their reply submitted that IRCTC provides access to Railway Passenger Reservation System through its server. It is submitted that 139 relates train running position to the users, as reflected in National Train Enquiry System (NTES) and has no role in train operations, which is controlled by the Railways. As per Gazzette Notification dated 06.06.2013 issued by Ministry of Railways Rule 8(ii) provides that "in case the ticket is cancelled or surrendered or if the request for refund of fare is filed online after the actual departure of the train, no refund of fare shall be admissible." It is further submitted that the IRCTC has no role in deciding the refund as it is decided by the Railways. There has been no deficiency on part of respondent no.1 and 2.
5. The opposite party no.3-DRM, Bhopal in its reply before the District Commission submitted that Railway Enquiry 139 is operated by IRCTC. Train No.01478 Lucknow Pune Express arrived at Bhopal Railway Station on 21.03.2014 at 00.10 hrs and departed at 00.20 hrs which was running late by 6.50 hrs from its schedule departure. TDR was filed with the IRCTC and the same was rejected by IRCTC. IRCTC not forwarded the -4- refund claim to the Railway administration. As per rules, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief.
6. Heard. Perused the record.
7. Appellant, who appeared in person argued that the District Commission without referring to the pleadings, arguments, contentions, rules, and various citations raised by the appellant dismissed the complaint arbitrarily. The District Commission misinterpreted the rules of Gazzette Notification dated 06.06.2013 of Ministry of Railways regarding refund of fare of confirmed tickets. Sub rule 7A(2) states that in case of confirmed ticket refund of fare shall be granted in accordance with Rule 6. Thus Rule 6(c) is applicable in appellant's case. Rule 11 dealt by the District Commission is not related to the present matter and the District Commission has wrongly took it into consideration. He therefore argued that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant supporting the impugned order argued that the District Commission has rightly appreciated the rules framed by the Ministry of Railways and notified in Gazzette dated 06.06.2013 regarding refund of fare in case of cancellation of ticket. He therefore argued that the appeal being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed.
-5-9. The complainant has filed his affidavit and documents Annexure-1 to 5. On behalf of opposite party no.1 and 2 an affidavit of Dr. Achyut Singh (Tourism & Marketing) along with Gazzette Notification dated 06.06.2013 of Ministry of Railways has been filed. On behalf of opposite party no.3, an affidavit of Vijay Kumar Upadhyay, Chief Controller, (Operations) DRM Office, Bhopal along with documents has been filed.
10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record as also the impugned order we find that the complainant has alleged due to wrong information on enquiry no.139 he missed the train and when he filed TDR for refund of fare, it was refused on the ground that the same was filed after prescribed time limit. Appellant has emphasized on Rule 7A (8) regarding cancellation of e-tickets of Ministry of Railways notified in Gazzette Notification dated 06.06.2013 and came in force from 1st July, 2013 stating that since he has filed TDR within two hours from the actual departure of the train, he is entitled to get refund of fare. On the other hand Railways emphasized on Rule 11 (ii) & (2) stating that since TDR was not filed within time, therefore the complainant was not entitled to get any refund.
11. In order to appreciate the contention of appellant and learned counsel for the Railways, it is necessary, to have a look on the Rules framed by Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) GSR 362(E) notified in Gazzette -6- dated 6th June, 2013 and come into force from 1st day of July, 2013 (at Page 46) which reads thus:
5. For rule 6 of the said rules, the following rules shall be substituted namely:-
6. Unused tickets on which reservation has been made--
1.....
(a)......
(b)......
(c) If the ticket is presented for cancellation within six hours before the scheduled departure of the train and upto two hours after the actual departure of the train irrespective of distance, the cancellation charge shall be fifty percent of the fare subject to a minimum of the cancellation charges referred to in clause (a); and
(d) the passenger may get the ticket cancelled from any Passenger Reservation System (PRS) counters or the designated current counters:
6. For rule 7 of the said rules, the following rules shall be substituted namely:-
7. Unused waitlisted tickets or RAC or waitlisted--
(1).....
(2)......
(3)......(4)
7A Cancellation of e-tickets--(1) The e-ticket may be booked and cancelled through internet and the refund of fare shall be credited to the customer's account after deducting the charges payable.
(2) In case of a confirmed e-ticket, refund of fare shall be granted in accordance with rule 6.
(3)....
(4)....
(5)....
(6)....
(7)...
(8) In case of e-tickets (confirmed or RAC), if the reservation charts have been prepared, online TDR is required to be filed for obtaining refund.
(9) No refund of fare shall be admissible on e-ticket having confirmed reservation in case the request for refund is filed online after two hours of the actual departure of the train.
-7-8. For rule 11 of the said rules, the following rule shall be substituted namely:-
11. Non-commencement or missing of journey due to late running of trains--
(1).....
(i)......
(ii) In case of e-tickets, the TDR is filed online before the actual departure of the train for availing full refund.
(2) In case the ticket is cancelled or surrendered or if the request for refund of fare is filed online after the actual departure of the train, no refund of fare shall be admissible.
(3).....
On bare perusal of the aforesaid rules, it is clear that Rule 6 deals with 'Unused tickets on which reservation has been made', Rule 7A deals with 'Cancellation of e-tickets' and Rule 11 deals with 'Non-commencement or missing of journey due to late running of trains.'
12. In the instant matter admittedly the train number 01478 Lucknow Pune Special, by which the complainant/appellant had to travel was scheduled to arrive Bhopal at 18.10 hrs and scheduled to depart at 18.15 hrs, on 20.03.2014-21.03.2014 had arrived by 6.30 hours late at 00.10 hrs on 21.03.2014 and departed at 00.15 hrs. The case of the complainant is solely on the ground that due to late running of train, he missed his train and after departure of train, at about 01.05 hrs, he filed TDR for refund of fare i.e. after actual departure of train.
13. Thus Rule 11 (None commencement or missing of journey due to late running of trains) will be applicable in the present matter and as per rule Rule 11(2) 'if the request for refund of fare is filed online after actual -8- departure of the train, no refund of fare shall be admissible' the complainant is not entitled to any relief. Rule 7A (8) will not apply in the instant matter.
14. In view of the aforesaid, we find that the opposite parties IRCTC and Railways have rightly refused to refund fare of ticket to the complainant and while doing so, they have not committed any deficiency in service.
15. We find that the District Commission after appreciating the rules in its correct perspective and after appreciation of material available on record and on due consideration of facts and circumstances of the case has rightly dismissed the complaint holding that the railways cannot be held deficient in service as the complainant failed to prove the same against the opposite parties. We see no reasons to disagree with the well-reasoned findings of the District Commission and therefore, uphold the same.
16. In the result, this appeal being devoid of any merit, is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(A. K. Tiwari) (Dr. Srikant Pandey) Presiding Member Member