Vijay Kumar Das vs Indian Railway Catering & Tourism... on 13 September, 2013

Transcription

1 National Consumer Disputes Redressal Vijay Kumar Das vs Indian Railway Catering & Tourism... on 13 September, 2013 NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO OF 2012 (From order dated in First Appeal No.FA/12/108 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhatisgarh, Raipur) Indian Kanoon - 1

2 Vijay Kumar Das, R/o Janta Quarter No. 78, Sec-2, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, (C.G.) Petitioner Versus 1. Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd., 9th Floor, Bank of Baroda Building, 16, Parliament Street, New Delhi Manager, Railway Board, South East Central Indian Kanoon - 2

3 Railway, Bilaspur Road, Vijay Kumar Das vs Indian Railway Catering & Tourism... on 13 September, 2013 Raipur, (C.G.) 3. Chief Commercial Manager, South Tiruchirapalli 01, Tamil Nadu Respondents BEFORE: HONBLE MR.JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : In-person For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent No.2 : Ms. Rekha Aggarwal, Advocate For the Respondent No.3 : Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocate Indian Kanoon - 3

4 Pronounced On 13th September, 2013 ORDER PER DR. S.M. KANTIKAR 1. That the Complainant Mr. Vijay Kumar Das, booked an E-ticket for Mr. D.N. Mandal, Chhavi Mandal, Deepa Mandal and Devashri Mandal through Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd. (herein after, IRCTC) by remittance of ticket charge at Rs. 7524/- through SBI Debit. The said ticket was booked for Train No KRBA TVC Express with PNR No with a date of journey on from Bilaspur to Coimbatore. On the date of journey only one ticket of Mr. D.N. Mandal was confirmed and remaining three were not confirmed. Therefore, Mr. D.N. Mandal cancelled the trip. The Complainant filed a TDR through internet on for refund of money. But the Respondent denied the refund stating that the passengers travelled by the said train. Hence, the Complainant filed an Complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short District Forum) for deficiency in service with a prayer of refund of Rs.7524/- along with interest of Rs.1,000/- with cost of Rs.1,500/-. 2. The District Forum dismissed the Complaint. Against the order the District Forum the Complainant filed an First Appeal No. FA/12/108 in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur, Chhatisgarh (in short State Commission). The State Commission also dismissed the Appeal with the observation in Para 3 as; There appears no material on the basis of which it can be said that passengers have not traveled. No affidavits of the passengers have been filed. The tickets might have been booked from account of the Appellant, but even then this capacity merely remains of an agent and he was not competent to file consumer complaint before the District Forum. None of the passengers has either filed the complaint or his/her affidavit to show that journey was not performed by him/her. The passengers have also not authorized the appellant to file complaint on their behalf. Indian Kanoon - 4

5 3. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission the Complainant filed this Revision Petition before us. 4. We have heard the Petitioner in-person and Counsel for the Respondent Ms. Rekha Aggarwal. The Complainant submitted that Mr. Mandal and family were known to him as a family friend, and no E-Ticket facility was available with Mr. Mandal, therefore, the Complainant booked his ticket to his account. 5. It is very important point for our consideration that who is the consumer in this case whether Mr. V.K. Das or Mr. Mandal/ family? as defined under Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 which reads as follows: Section 2(d) (ii) defines a consumer as any person who- [hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose]. 6. Therefore, in this case, real consumers are Mr. Mandal & his family members on whose name ticket was booked. They have neither come forward to file a complaint nor filed any affidavit in this regard. Therefore, we do not hold Mr. Vijay Das as a consumer. He would have filed such complainant jointly with the Mr. Mandal as a necessary party. Hence, Complainant herein stands in position of an Agent only. He cannot be said as a consumer. 7. The learned Counsel for OP brought our attention towards the rules of refund of e-ticket. Under rule 3.4 it is clearly stated as follows: Indian Kanoon - 5

6 In case on a party e-ticket or a family e-ticket issued for travel of more than one person, some persons have confirmed reservation and others are on the list of RAC and confirmed reservation and others are on the list of RAC and waiting list, then in case of passengers on RAC or waitlisted not travelling, a certificate has to be obtained from the ticket checking staff to that effect and refund of fare shall be processed online through TDR, indicating the details of the certificate issued by ticket checking staff. The online TDR shall be filed up to seventy two hours of actual arrival of the train at passengers destination and the original certificate issued by the ticket checking staff is to be sent through post to Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC). The fare shall be refunded by Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation (IRCTC) to the customers account after due verification. 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. No refund of fare shall be admissible on e-ticket having confirmed reservation in the actual departure of the train. 8. Also we are doubtful about the intention of the Complainant that whether he is taking double benefits? One by way of collecting money from Mr. Mandal for booking of reservation and on other had seeking refund from the IRCTC also..! 9. It appears very strange that the rules of IRCTC for refund of e-ticket appear to be unilaterally framed for the benefit of OP. It is impossible to fathom that in case if passenger cancels his journey why he should go to railway station and search the ticket checking staff and get the certificate. Such e-ticket refund procedure is not just proper which is practically impossible and not helpful to the consumers at large. It is just illusionary and humiliation of consumers. Instead of seeking refund most of the passengers will prefer to forgo the money rather to approach TTE and get a certificate. 10. The IRCTC website should be fool proof; and needs drastic improvement. Most of the consumers/passengers suffer from the IRCTC web site; that booking or cancellation of ticket will be a paramount exercise. Most of the time the website OP is inaccessible for hours together. 11. Therefore, we feel necessary to issue certain directions as the OP should take necessary steps to improve their IRCTC website which should be user/ consumer friendly, fast and perfect in all aspects. It is the need of hour for Consumers at large in our country which is the ultimate Goal of Consumer Protection Act, Indian Kanoon - 6

7 12. The revision petition is meritless and dismissed.... (J.M. MALIK J.) PRESIDING MEMBER. (Dr. S.M. KANTIKAR) MEMBER Mss-02 Indian Kanoon - 7