Railway Can’t Charge Waitlist Passenger, Rule To 'Usurp' Fare If Ticket Not Cancelled 30 Mins Before Departure Bad: Chandigarh Consumer Commission

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh recently frowned upon Railways' policy to not refund the fare paid by a waitlist passenger, who could not undertake the journey due to non-confirmation of his ticket and failed to cancel it within stipulated 30 minutes period before train departure.

Upholding the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Commission grating refund in one such case, the State Commission observed:

One cannot have one’s cake and eat it too. Here the appellants cannot be permitted to usurp the money, which the complainant spent as fare for the journey, which it never undertook as his tickets were not made available or confirmed until the train's last minute of departure. In our concerted view, the provisions of Rule 7(3) (of Notification dated 04.11.2015) are not in the interest of a consumer, who despite paying the fare and in the waiting list, when not getting any availability of seat or booking whether confirmed or unconfirmed, is not refunded the fare paid by him against such booking. The appellants cannot make profit under the garb of their statute i.e. on one hand, usurp the fare paid by such a consumer who did not get availability of seat and simultaneously, receiving fare from other successful passenger having confirmation for the same seat. Against the same seat allotted to a successful passenger, the appellants cannot charge fare from unsuccessful passenger, who failed to get availability of the said same seat, the Commission observed.

The Appeal was filed against an order passed by District Consumer Disputes Commission partly allowing a consumer-compliant granting a refund. 

The Complainant had booked two First Class Tickets for Rajdhani Express and had paid Rs. 9,520. The status of the tickets was waitlisted, however, the booking clerk assured that the tickets would be confirmed. However, when the complaint contacted TTE and requested to adjust the seats he was informed that no seats could be made available. Thereby, the complaint was filed seeking a refund for the amount paid by him while booking the tickets alleging deficiency in rendering service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Railway.

However, the opposite parties in their reply had stated that as per Rule 306 of the Indian Railway Conference Association Coaching Tariff No. 26 Part 1 (Volum-1), the Railway Administration does not guarantee reserved seats to any of the customers and nobody can take guarantee for reservation of seat or anything which is provided by the Indian Railways. 

The Divisional Railway Manager in its reply had further stated that as per Railways passengers (Cancellation of tickets and refund of fare) Rules, 1998 no refund of fare shall be granted on RAC or wait-listed tickets after thirty minutes before the scheduled departure of the train. 

The impugned order was challenged stating that Sections 13, 15 and 28 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 bar the jurisdiction of this Commission to adjudicate upon any dispute relating to claims for refund of fares or part thereof or for a refund of any freight paid etc. and the provisions of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. Furthermore, it was submitted that as per Notification dated 04.11.2015, Rule 7 (3) clearly mentions that “No refund of fare shall be granted on RAC tickets or wait listed ticket after thirty minutes before the scheduled departure of the train”.

Respondent, however, argued that in the garb of Rule 7(3) pertaining to no refund of fare, the appellants are being unduly enriched by not refunding such fair where the consumer failed to cancel the ticket within 30 minutes before the scheduled departure of the train and such Rule, which infringed the rights of the consumer is unconscionable and is liable to be struck down in view of Section 49 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

After considering the contentions raised by the parties, the commission observed that the appeal is liable to be dismissed citing that Consumer Fora have the jurisdiction to handle the present consumer complaint, even when the provision existed to deal with the cases for refund of fares in the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

Relying on the Apex Court decisions in Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society versus M. Lalitha (dead) through LRs and M.D., Orissa Coop. Housing Corpn. Ltd. vs. K.S. Sudarshan, the Commission observed that it settled that Consumer Fora do have the jurisdiction to handle the present consumer complaint, even when the provision existed to deal with the cases for refund of fares in the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

"... in our considered view, Section 3 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 cannot be said to be provision inconsistent with Section 28 of the Railway Act. No doubt that the Railway Claim Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with the case mentioned in Section 13 but it does not bar the jurisdiction of the Consumer Court," the Court observed relying on the Apex Court decisions in Lakshmi Engineering Works Ltd v. PSG Industrial Institute and Northern Railways & anr. v. Sahil Bansal.

While considering the contention raised by Counsel appearing for the appellants that the respondent is not entitled to a refund in view of the specific provision of Rule 7(3), the Commission opined that in this case the appellants cannot be permitted to usurp the money, which the complainant spent as fare for the journey, which it never undertook as his tickets were not made available or confirmed until the train's last minute of departure.

The Commission observed that provisions of Rule 7(3) are not in the interest of a consumer, who despite paying the fare and in the waiting list, when not getting any availability of seat or booking whether confirmed or unconfirmed, is not refunded the fare paid by him against such booking. The Commission further added that appellants cannot make a profit under the garb of their statute.

"Thus, the conduct of the appellants in denying the refund of the ticket fare for non-travelling on account of non-confirmation of booking by the complainant is unfair & clear deficiency in service, which resulted in not only financial loss to the complainant but also caused suffering and mental agony," the Commission said. 

Case Title: Union of India and Ors. v. Amandeep Singh and Ors. 

Before: Justice Raj Shekhar Attri and Rajesh K. Arya 

Dated: 7.02.2023

Click Here To Read/Download The Order