Downgrading Tickets From 2nd AC To 3rd AC Without Prior Notification, Chandigarh District Commission Holds Chandigarh Railways And IRCTC Liable

Brief Facts:

Mr. Punit Jain (“Complainant”) reserved a 2nd AC train ticket for himself and his family from Vaishno Devi to Chandigarh by paying a fare of ₹2,560/-. However, upon reaching the railway station, they discovered their ticket had been changed to 3rd AC without prior notification. Despite requesting assistance from the train ticket examiner (TT), they were unable to secure 2nd AC berths and had to travel in 3rd AC. This downgrade led to inconvenience and a lack of amenities to the Complainant and his family members. The Complainant sought a refund for the fare difference, but the TT refused to issue the necessary certificate. The Complainant made several communications with the railway authorities but didn't receive a satisfactory response. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Chandigarh (“District Commission) and field a consumer complaint against Chandigarh Railways and Indian Railways Catering and Tourism Corporation (“IRCTC”).

The Chandigarh Railways denied any responsibility for the refund issue, as the ticket was purchased online through IRCTC. IRCTC also denied liability for the Complainant's grievances, stating it was merely a service provider linked to the Railway's Passenger Reservation System. It highlighted that the Complainant didn't submit an online Ticket Deposit Receipt (TDR) and "no refund certificate" as per procedure.

Observations by the District Commission:

The District Commission after analysing the ticket noted that seats/berths No. 43-44 were assigned to the Complainant and his family member. Further, the ticket fare chart, confirmed that the price of AC 3-tier tickets was lower than that of AC 2-tier tickets, with a difference of ₹1,005/- for the three tickets purchased by the Complainant for the journey. Furthermore, the Complainant formally requested the railway authorities via email to refund the fare difference, to which he didn't receive any satisfactory response. The District Commission rejected the contention made by IRCTC that the Complainant was required to submit a certificate from the ticket checking staff online for the refund and held that the action of IRCTC and Chandigarh Railways for downgrading the berths without prior notice and refusing the refund constituted deficient service and unfair trade practices.

It held that IRCTC cannot evade the responsibility by asserting that it was merely an intermediary for ticket booking and was not responsible for pricing. It held that Chandigarh Railways and IRCTC were obligated to provide services to consumers as per the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, which mandates timely refund of payments.

Consequently, the District Commission directed Chandigarh Railways and IRCTC to collectively refund ₹1,005/- to the Complainant along with 9% interest per annum from the date of travel and pay a compensation ₹5,000/- for mental agony and harassment. They were also directed to pay ₹4,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by the Complainant.