+ Submit Your Complaint
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17

Thread: online railway reservation IRCTC

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2008

    Default online railway reservation IRCTC

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	irctc-login.jpg 
Views:	2373 
Size:	12.2 KB 
ID:	5797
    Complaint filed on: 02/08/2008
    Notice Served on Op: 16/09/20089


    COMPLAINT NO:1714/08




    Dheerendra Nath
    No.13, 2nd Floor
    4th Main Road
    Chandra Reddy Layout
    S.T. Bed, Koramangala-4 Block
    Bangalore- 560 047


    Opposite Party:

    Indian Railways
    (South Western Railway)
    Senior Divisional Commercial Manager
    Divisional Office
    Bangalore Division
    Bangalore-560 023

    O R D E R


    This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite parties (Ops in short) for the refund of an amount of Rs.30,000/- with costs and for such other reliefs.

    The brief facts of the case are that the complainant booked a ticket from Bangalore City to Rajpur Junction at Bangalore One Centre, Koramangala, Bangalore on March-30, 2008. As per the terms and conditions, only confirmed railway e-tickets are issued at Bangalore One Centre. The complainant to travel till Nagpur Junction in AC-I Class by Bangalore Rajdhani Express (Train No.2429), which goes from Bangalore City to New Delhi. Since tickets to other trains are not issued as a through-ticket with Rajdhani trains, he booked a separate ticket in AC-II Class from Nagpur Junction to Raipur Junction in Gitanjali (Superfast) Express (Train No.2859) which goes from Mumbai (CST) to Howrah Junction. The dates of journey are as follows.

    April-17, 2008 Boarding Rajdhani Exp (2429) at Bangalore City
    April-18, 2008 Boarding Gitanjali Exp (2859) At Nagpur

    Complainant AC-I Class ticket in Rajdhani Express was confirmed at the date of journey, while his AC-II Class ticket in Gitanjali Express was still not confirmed (still waitlisted). At the date of journey (April-17, 2008), he Arrived at the Bangalore City station to board Rajdhani Express and searched for his name in the reservation chart, but the chart was not put up till the time of departure. So he got an online confirmation through the PNR number (4262395125) that his booking in Rajdhani Express is confirmed. After boarding the train and after the train left Bangalore City Station, while ticket checking, he presented the original IRCTC issues e-ticket printed by Bangalore One. He also presented his PAN Card as the mentioned photo ID for verification. The TTE told that he does not find his name in the list of passengers that he has. That complainant very gracefully presented all the genuine proofs and substantiated that he has paid the full fare to Indian Railways, 2 weeks in advance. But the TTE was adamant and did not accept any of his justifications. The TTE told that his name was not there on the passengers list, and that he was travelling with an invalid ticket.
    The TTE refused to co-operate, and forced complainant out of the cabin. Complainant was travelling along with 2 bags, and the TTE pushed him out of the cabin and forced him to stand by the door of the coach. After leaving Bangalore City station at 20:20 hours, the very first stop for Rajdhani Express is the Sathya Sai Prashanthi Nilayam station (SSPN), where it is scheduled to reach by 23:00 hours. The TTE told him that there was no way he could travel in Rajdhani Express, and that he has to get down at SSPN Station. Despite having paid full fare to Indian Railways for the highest class of travel, in AC-I Class, the TTE forced him to stand near the door for 2.30 hours with 2 bags. The TTE insulted and humiliated complainant by pushing him and blaming that he is traveling without a ticket. TTE also threatened to take him to police, saying that he was travelling without a ticket. After being humiliated, when the train reached SSPN station at around 23:00 hours, the TTE forced complainant out of the train with his luggage. He tried to complain to the Station Master, but the train has a very short stop (about 1 to 2 minutes) and by the time he could find the Station Master’s office, it left. Having a totally valid ticket in AC-I class in Rajdhani Express he was forced out of the train in between, forcibly and unwillingly cancelling his journey.

    The complainant immediately contacted the Station Master at SSPN station and told that he was thrown out of the train despite having paid for the highest class of railway ticket. The Station Master at Sathya Sai Prashanthi Nilayam station was very kind and helping, he immediately checked the ticket status on the internet and validated that he has a confirmed berth booked in the ‘F’ cabin of ‘H1’ coach of Rajdhani Express on April-17, 2008 from Bangalore City till Nagpur Junction. The Station Master tried to contact the Train Superintendent of Rajdhani Express through Walkie-Talkie and Wireless Telephone for about 30 minutes, but there was no response from the other side. The station master, then tried to contact the Bangalore Station Master, but the Bangalore Station Master too did not lend an ear, and did not co-operate. Complainant decided to lodge a complaint and take up against Indian Railways at the Consumer Rights Forum. At that moment, there was no complaint book at SSPN station, so the Station Maser took his complaint on a plain piece of paper, and endorsed it with his official seal and signature.

    Immediately after lodging a complaint with the Station Master, he rushed out to find a taxi so that he could return to Bangalore. He had to pay Rupees 2,000 and manage with an overpriced taxi journey of 4 hours back to Bangalore. Then after returning to Bangalore at around 5.30 on April-18, 2008, he immediately rushed to the Airport to find that there was only one flight available for Raipur at 06.45. He had to book a flight ticket from Bangalore to Raipur in emergency for a fare of 12,500 rupees. Hence the complainant approached this forum.

    Op appeared through its counsel, filed its version and also gave evidence by way of affidavit. Complainant gave his evidence by way of affidavit. Heard arguments on both sides.

    The complainant submitted after collecting the amount, Bangalore One Centre at Koramangala issued Electronic Reservation Slip in which it is clearly mentioned as date of journey was 17/04/2008 and it is not necessary to implead Bangalore One Centre as one of the Ops, when the Divisional Office of Railway is made as party. He further submitted that he requested the Bangalore One Centre to produce the application issued by him to ascertain whether the date is mentioned as 16/04/2008 or 17/04/2008 but Bangalore One Centre has not furnished the said application. The reservation slip issued by Bangalore One Centre is a confirmed ticket and inspite of repeated request, the TTE refused to accept the said ticket as his name is not found in the chart issued to them.

    Learned counsel for OP submitted that the journey of the complainant was not on 17/4/2008 but on 16/04/2008 and the electronic reservation slip submitted by the complainant is not the genuine one and he has played a fraud on the Railways. According to reservation chart, the name of the complainant was mentioned the date of journey was on 16/04/2008 but not on 17/04/2008. The Op has to acted according to the Reservation Chart and it is a computerized chart one can not change in any manner. The Bangalore One Centre is the proper party to explain but the said Bangalore One Centre is not a party in this complaint and even complainant has not given notice to the said party. After taking the contention in the version, the complainant in his affidavit stated that the said ticket has been wrongly booked on 16/04/2008 instead of requested date of boarding as 17/04/2008. After receiving the complaint, the Op contacted Bangalore One Centre and it is confirmed that the complainant booked his ticket for the journey on 16/04/2008. The clarification issued by the Bangalore One Centre clearly discloses that the journey date was 16/04/2008. The Op has also produced the evidence of Station Master at Satya Shanthi Prashanti Nilaya Station. Learned counsel further submitted that the complainant has not taken his journey on 16/04/2008 and he manipulated the document and wanted to take journey on 17/04/2008 and played a mis-chief on the Railways.

    Now the point for consideration is whether the electronic reservation slip submitted by the complainant along with this complaint is a fabricated one or the genuine one. The payment of amount and the journey of the complainant are all admitted, except the date of journey. It is also admitted that the Bangalore One Centre has booked the ticket and issued an electronic reservation slip. When we peruse the electronic reservation slip, it does not contain any signature of the person who issued it with seal. When we peruse the said reservation slip the date of journey given as 17/04/2008. The Op has produced the reservation chart in it the name of the complainant is mentioned as date of journey on 16/04/2008. When we peruse the Bangalore One Centre clarification letter dated 13/10/2008 in which the journey date is mentioned as 16/04/2008. The electronic reservation slip is also issued by Bangalore One Centre and the clarification letter was also issued by Bangalore One Centre but in these two documents, the date of journey differs from one document to another. The clarification letter was issued by the Bangalore One Centre with signature and seal. The reservation chart also fully corroborates the clarification letter. The doubt arouses when the Bangalore One Centre has given the date of journey on 16/04/2008 and it has issued electronic reservation slip with date of journey on 17/04/2008. The proper party should explain the reason for different dates shown by Bangalore One Centre mistakenly or not. But the said Bangalore One Centre is not a party in this complaint. The Railway authorities and TTE have acted according to the reservation chart supplied to them in which the name of the complainant was not found in the chart dated 17/04/2008 but his name was found in the chart dated 16/04/2008. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Op.

    However, the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.3,466/- towards train fare. It is not the case of the Op that it has already refunded the said amount. When the complainant has not performed his journey and Op has not rendered any service, it has to refund the amount paid by the complainant towards purchase of train tickets.

    In view of the discussions made above, we are of the opinion and pass the following order.

    O R D E R
    Complaint is partly allowed. Opposite party is directed to refund an amount of Rs.3,466/- (Rupees Three Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Six only) to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order. No order as to cost.

    Dictated to the Stenographer. Got it transcribed and corrected. Pronounced in the Open forum on this the 30th January 2009.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2008

    Default online railway reservation






    Gokavarapu Krishna Rao,
    S/o Appala Raju,
    45 years, Business,
    Vimal Show Room,
    M.G.Road, Vizianagaram. …….Complainant.


    1. The Chief Commercial Manager,
    Northern Railway, Baroda House,
    New delhi.
    2. The General Manager (OPS), IRCTC.,
    9th Floor, Bank of Baroda Buildings,
    16th Parliament Street, New Delhi.
    3. Kameswari Tours & Travels,
    IRCTCs E-Ticket Service Agent,
    P.S.R.Complex, Vizianagaram. …..…Opposite parties.

    This complaint coming on for final hearing before us on 10-12-2008 in the presence of Sri K.Venu Gopal, Advocate for complainant and of Sri I.Suresh, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and opposite parties IRCTC and Kameswari Tours & Travels (IRCTCs E-Ticket Service Agent ) called absent and remained exparte and having stood over for consideration, the Forum made the following:

    O R D E R
    1. The case of the complainant is that he along with his wife booked two tickets of 2nd A/c for traveling from Delhi to Azmir on 20-11-2007 in train No.9270 MKI PBR Express through the Kameswari Tours & Travels (IRCTCs E-Ticket Service Agent ), a traveling agent at Vizianagaram. He reached Delhi in the early morning of 20-11-2007 and found for the said train no 2nd A/c compartment was not attached at all. He also complained that they were not allowed to travel in 3rd A/c. Inspite of the fact, they possess 2nd A/c ticket for the same train thus forced him to continue the jouney in general compartment. Terming it the failure of the railways in making alternative arrangements while cancelling 2nd A/c accommodation inspite of the fact that, tickets were already booked and putting the passengers to inconvenience is termed as deficiency in service and the complainant is seeking compensation of Rs.50,000/- for that inconvenience caused to him and his wife on that day. It is also for refund of the 2nd A/c ticket fair. He claimed to have purchased general ticket for the said journey.

    2. The 1st opposite party railways pleaded that for technical reasons 2nd A/c compartment could not be attached to that particular train. It took up a stand that alternate arrangements were made and the 2nd A/c passengers were accommodated in the same train by the railways and alleged that the complainant never approached the concerned for alternative arrangements. It is further pleaded that the complainant has put to strict proof he made journey by ordinary compartment. Without any proof he is not entitled to any compensation. It took up a specific plea, that the 2nd A/c fare was already refunded by the IRCTC and there is no deficiency in service and the complainant is not entitled for any compensation and damages.
    Opposite parties IRCTC and Kameswari Tours & Travels (IRCTCs E-Ticket Service Agent ) called absent and remained exparte.

    3. At the time of enquiry the complainant marked Ex.A.1 to A.3 and the 1st opposite party did not choose to adduce any documentary proof.

    4. Both counsels were heard who reiterated their contentions made in the pleadings. In view of the respective contentions, the point that would arise for determination in this case is.

    Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1
    and IRCTC and if so, the complainant is entitled for any compensation or damages
    as claimed?

    5. POINT:- The fact that the complainant and his wife has confirmed reservation in 2nd A/c coach from Delhi to Azmir on 20-11-2007 is not in dispute and so also the fact on that day for that particular train 2nd A/c coach was not attached at all. The complainant asserts that though he approached the 3rd A/c coach conductor for alternative accommodation. He was not allowed to travel in that coach and so he was forced to purchase general ticket and then travel in general compartment to reach Azmir. The railways equally assert that the passengers were accommodated by making alternative arrangements evidently, the complainant did not approach the concerned authority to avail such alternative arrangements.

    6. Though it assert that alternative arrangements were made for 2nd A/c passengers in the same train. The railways could not place any material to substantiate this contention. More over, the contention of the railways that the complainant did not approach for alternative arrangements does not stand to reason at all. Having confirmed reservation in a particular train it is quite natural that the complainant would definitely approach the conductor of 3rd A/c for accommodation and without making such effort he would not have continuous journey in general compartment. That would be the normal conduct of act by an ordinary prudent man. In the absence of any evidence on the part of the railways that they made alternative arrangements for 2nd A/c passengers in 3rd A/c coach, in our view, the contention of the complainant that he was forced to travel in general compartment can be accepted.

    7. Though an attempt was made but contended that absolutely no proof that the complainant traveling in that train in general compartment itself as no ticket were produced, in our view, if we take into consideration that the complainant had to undertake further journey and booked to Ahmadabad from Azmir and from there had confirmed reservation from Ahmadabad to Vizianagaram. The plea of the complainant that he traveled in the general compartment, though did not file the ticket quite natural and reasonable and can be accepted without production of the ticket. This failure on the part of the railways to prove alternative accommodation to a passenger for a confirmed reservation and forcing him to travel in general compartment in our view definitely amount to deficiency in service on the part of the railways.

    8. Now coming to the question of compensation there cannot be any doubt that the complainant must have suffered mental agony and tension while it was found that in the last moment the promise accommodation was not available in the train and he must have been put to any amount of inconvenience for traveling in general compartment along with his wife. In our view, the 2nd A/c fare already collected from the complainant have been evidently refunded, awarding compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the inconvenience and hardship caused to the complainant and his wife in performing the journey from Delhi to Azmir though had a confirmed reservation would be just and proper. Accordingly this point is answered.

    9. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing opposite parties 1 and IRCTC to pay compensation of rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order to the complainant besides costs of rs.1,000/- (rupees one thousand only) Avocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) The complaint against opposite party
    Kameswari Tours & Travels (IRCTCs E-Ticket Service Agent ) dismissed.
    Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pr nounced by us in the open Forum, this the 04th day of February, 2009.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2008

    Default online railway reservation, IRCTC









    Nikki Rama Krishna,

    S/o Thavudu,

    38 years, Working as Lecturer in Botany,

    Government Junior College, Badangi

    Residing at Surya Sai Residency,

    Plot No.301, Gundavalavari Veedhi,

    Vizianagaram. …….Complainant.


    1. Kameswari Tours & Travels,

    Represented by Manager,

    19 & 32, B.Block, P.S.R. Complex,

    Near R.T.C. Complex,


    2. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited,

    Rep., by Senior Executive/IT,

    IRCTC, 9th Floor, Bank of Baroda Building.16,

    Parliament Street, New Delhi – 110 001.

    3. Station Manager,

    South Central Railway,


    4. Chief Reservation Supervisor,

    South Central Railway,


    5. The Divisional Commercial Manager,

    South Central Railway,


    6. Deputy Chief Commercial Manager/PRS,

    South Central Railway,

    Secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh.

    7. Senior Divisional Commercial Manager,

    South Central Railway,

    Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh. ……Opposite parties.

    This complaint is coming on for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri Ch.Chandra Sekhara Rao, advocate for complainant and of opposite parties 1 to 6 called absent and remained exparte and Sri I.Suresh, Advocate for opposite party No.7 and having stood over for consideration, the Forum made the following:-

    O R D E R


    1. This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to the opposite parties to (a) pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony suffered by him and his family members, (b) to pay costs and (c) to pay such other relief or reliefs which the Forum deem fit.

    2. In brief, the complainant’s case is that he is working as lecturer in Botany of government Junior College at Badangi of Vizianagaram District. The complainant, his wife and their two children planned to visit Tirupathi on 04-05-2008 and return back on 09-05-2008. For that he got reserved train tickets to and fro. While so they had bitter experience during the return journey on 09-05-2008. They boarded Tirumala Express train at Tirupati. To their surprise, out of the four berths reserved by them, Berth No.B.1 63 and B.1 64 which were allotted to complainant’s wife and complainant’s elder son, were not there at all. The complainant informed the fact to the T.T.E. but the said T.T.E. was arrogant and asked the complainant’s elder son and wife to get down the train as the two berths were not available. At last at about 11:30 P.M. by which time the train reached Nellore, the T.T.E. provided B.7 berth and promised to allot another berth at Eluru. By the time the train reached Eluru, it was 6 A.M. on 10-05-2008 when B.1 berth was provided.

    3. That the complainant got reserved four berths sufficiently in advance on 14-03-2008 through opposite party No.1 who is agent of IRCTC, by paying Rs.5,060/- towards charges for to and fro. Inspite of that, all the four berths were not made available for occupation by the family of complainant. Consequently, all the family members were put to lot of inconvenience and hardship all over the return journey. They were put to mental agony humiliation and hardship.

    4. Opposite parties 1 to 6 remained exparte. Opposite party No.7 filed counter admitting that the complainant and his family members booked four tickets in 3rd A/c on 09-05-2008 for their travel from Tirupathi to Visakhapatnam by train No.7487. It is contended that the complainant informed the T.T.E. only after the train moved from the Station at Tirupathi, about non availability of berth numbers 63 and 64. Then the T.T.E. allotted his berth No.7 to the complainant’s family assuring to make alternative arrangements after completing checking of the entire coach. That the complainant and his family members have occupied three berths comfortably and also admitted that the two berths namely 63 and 64 were dummied and converted for staking of provision. Rest of the complaint allegations are denied. It is contended the said T.T.E. has informed the complainant that two of the berths in 2nd A/c were vacant due to non joining of parties as such asked the complainant to occupy the two berths but the complainant did not prefer to go to the 2nd A/c. That the complainant and his family members traveled comfortably without any grievance since another berth is allotted at Eluru, that the complainant asked the T.T.E. to endorse on the ticket that the two berths 63 and 64 are not available for occupation. The T.T.E. refused to make such endorsement. That the complainant therefore bore grudge against the T.T.E. and filed this complaint without tenable grounds. That there is no cause of action to file the complaint and there is no deficiency of service. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.

    5. The complainant filed his affidavit and marked Exts.A.1 to A.9. The Head Travelling Ticket Examiner working in the office of opposite party No.7, filed chief affidavit but marked no documents.

    6. Heard both sides, perused the affidavits and documents.

    7. The point for consideration is:-

    Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

    8. POINT:- Ex.A.1 is reservation slip for the journey of complainant and his three family members from Vizianagaram to Tirupathi on 04-05-2008. Ex.A.2 is similar reservation slip for the journey of the complainant and his three family members from Tirupathi to Visakhapatnam on 09-05-2008. There is no dispute that the complainant and his three family members had their return journey on 09-05-2008 from Tirupathi to Visakhapatnam by Tirumala Express. Further there is no dispute that out of the four berths, berth numbers 63 and 64 were dummied and converted into different use as such not fit for occupation by the two members of the family of the complainant. IRCTC in his attempt to exonerate himself from the alleged deficiency in service due to non existence of berth No.63 and 64, pleaded that he made alternate arrangement (1) by offering accommodation in 2nd A/c in the place of berth numbers 63 and 64 and (2) he offered one berth of his own and arranged another berth at Eluru. Before going into the alternate arrangements made by opposite party No.7, we fail to understand how the opposite parties have allotted the two berths namely 63 and 64 to the complainant though in fact the two berths were not in existence? The matter has to be examined in the view point of the complainant. The complainant, his wife and their two sons who are aged 11 and 6 years respectively, got their berths reserved on 14-03-2008 for their trip to Tirupathi on 04-05-2008 and return journey on 09-05-2008. It is a matter of shock to the complainant when two of the berths reserved for his family were not in existence when he actually approached to occupy them. The complainant has to anxiously wait until the T.T.E. completed checking of the entire coach. Further the complainant had to wait until the next day morning when he was allotted the fourth berth at Eluru. The opposite parties having received sufficient reservation charges and fair in advance, failed to provide two of the berths. It is relevant in this connection to refresh what is “deficiency” of service? Section 2 (1) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act defines “deficiency” means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service”. This definition applies Mutatis Mutandis to the deficiency involved in the case on hand. Thus the point is answered in favour of the complainant.

    9. The learned counsel for opposite party No.7 submitted that though the two berths 63 and 64 were not available to the complainant as per the reservation but T.T.E. working in the unit of opposite party No.7 has endeavoured his best to make alternate arrangement to the complainant’s family as such there is no inconvenience or any hardship due to non availability of berth numbers 63 and 64 on examination of the entire material on record it can be said that the opposite parties have committed the wrong. The T.T.E. tried his best to minimize the inconvenience of the complainant and his family members but could not be total successful. It is to be seen the T.T.E. claims the said action of allotting berth at Eluru is a great achievement. But it is a disgrace and great disadvantage to the complainant and his family traveling from Tirupathi.

    10. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties 1 to 7 to (a) pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant and (b) to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards cots.

    Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, transcribed by him, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 31st day of March, 2009.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2008

    Default online railway reservation


    Complaint no. 375 of 27.6.2006.

    Date of Order 05.08.2009.


    1- Shailesh Kumar son of Chowdhary Rakesh Kumar;

    2- Shikha wife of Sh. Shailesh Kumar

    both residents of B.VII.620, Pindi Street, Ludhiana.



    1- Union of India, Ministry of Railways through its Secretary.

    2- R.K. Aggarwal, Contractor of Northern Railways, New Delhi.

    3- Incharge of Coach No.C-10, Amritsar Shatabadi, Northern Railways, New Delhi.

    4- IRCTC (Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation) Bank of Baroda Building, 16, Parliament Street, New Delhi through its Manager.

    …..Opposite parties.




    Sh. T.N. Vaidya, President.

    Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Member.


    Present: Complainant in person.

    Ms Vijay Sharma Adv. for opposite parties no.1,2 & 4.

    Opposite party no.3 given up.

    O R D E R


    1- Complainants, who are husband and wife, booked seats no.29 and 30 in coach no.C-10 of New Delhi-Ludhiana Shatabadi and travelled therein on 8.6.2006. Cost of food to be supplied during journey, was charged by the Indian Railways (opposite party no.1). Food was served by IRCTC (opposite party no.4) through its contractor Sh. R.K. Aggarwal opposite party no.2. As a routine, when food during journey was served, the complainant found the same to be of inferior quality. While eating, found glass pieces in the vegetables. Consequently, complainant started vomiting and started feeling pain in the stomach. The matter was immediately reported to the coach Incharge, who felt sorry and in writing, undertook not to indulge in such careless act in future. This episode was also highlighted by the media. Complainants after feeling stomach pain, got themselves medically examined at Ludhiana. Such act on part of opposite party, claimed amounting to deficiency in service, by filing the present complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is averred that had they consumed entire food containing glass pieces, it would have endangered their lives. Serving such food caused mental tension, torture, agony to the complainant and consequently, are seeking compensation of Rs.5 lacs from opposite party.

    2- Opposite party no.1 in their reply, admitted booking of seats on 8.6.2006 for two passengers in Amritsar Shatabadi by the complainants, which have been issued by Indian Railways. But claimed that catering services in New Delhi Amritsar Shatabadi, are provided by IRCTC, New Delhi(opposite party no.4) through its contractor, on its own terms and conditions. Further claimed that IRCTC is not an entity working under Northern Railway. For deficiency, if any, opposite party no.1 is not liable and they have been wrongly impleaded, so complaint against them deserves dismissal.

    3- Opposite party no.2 contractor of IRCTC opposite party no.4, has also claimed allegations of the complainant, to be incorrect, false and untrue, by filing separate reply. They averred that complaint is filed with malafide intention, to malign reputation and long standing goodwill of the opposite party. They admitted booking of seats by the complainants in Amritsar Shatabadi on 8.6.2006. But denied that food served in the train, was of inferior quality. He claimed himself to be caterer of the railway since last one decade and serving more than 100 trains across the country, having a turn over of 200 crores. Had they been served bad food, their services would have been terminated by the railways. They are ISO certified company. Qua the food served, only one complaint is made by the complainants. None till now, has ever made any such complaint. This complainant did with an intention, to malign their repudiation. They denied presence of glass pieces in the food served to the train passengers. Also denied that complainant started vomiting on consumption of food. Had there been truth in allegations, tongue of the complainant, being a sensitive organ, would have immediately detected it while chewing the same. Allegations as such are false. Further pleaded that coach Incharge only distributed passengers opinion cards to the passengers at board, to give their feed back regarding the quality and services provided during the journey. The cards were to be submitted to IRCTC opposite party no.4. But the complainant carried away these cards and they annexed false, fabricated statements on behalf of the coach Incharge. No complaint was ever lodged by the complainant with the railway authorities, regarding the incident. Therefore, his allegations being false, complaint is liable to be dismissed.

    4- IRCTC Opposite party no.4 vide separate reply, have also disputed and denied all allegations of the complainant. It is averred by them that contract of catering was granted to M/s R.K. Aggarwal (Opposite party no.2), having ISO certificate. Under the agreement with opposite party no.2, they are not liable for any liability, arising under the law of the land. Hence, they are exonerated from any liability under this contract with opposite party no.2. Further claimed that qua quality of food, no complaint was ever received by them from the complainant, nor food with glass pieces, was served to them during journey. No pain in stomach was felt, neither complainant vomited and also never got medically examined.

    5- In support of their respective claims, parties adduced evidence by way of affidavits and documents.

    6- On the day of arguments, complainant appeared in person and counsel for opposite parties heard.

    7- We have perused the file.

    8- Admitted aspect is that both complainants undertook journey on New Delhi-Ludhiana Shatabadi in coach no.C-10 on 8.6.2006. Complementary food was served. But rest of the allegations that food so served was of inferior quality, having glass pieces in the vegetables, stand in totality denied by opposite party. Also denied that complainant swallowed such food, having glass pieces and thereby causing vomiting and also feeling pain in stomach and thereafter, got medically treated from doctors at Ludhiana.

    9- Though complainants in support of their plea, have tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A of complainant no.1 Sh. Shailesh Kumar. He in that affidavit, has sworn all his allegations. But those allegations are also controverted by opposite party, by filing affidavit Ex.RW1/A of Sh. Jagdish Goyal, Area Officer of Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Limited; affidavit Ex.RW2/A of Sh. Amit Sinha of opposite party no.2 and affidavit Ex.DW/OP of Sh. Alok Sharma, Dy. CCM, Catering, Northern Railway.

    10- As oral averments, as sworn by the complainant, stand controverted by opposite parties through their respective affidavits. Resultantly, question is why we should believe allegations of the complainant qua serving food, having glass pieces in the vegetable, while travelling in Shatabadi Express. In support of allegations, complainant has relied on passenger opinion card Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. In Ex.P2, Sh. Shailesh Kumar had written about presence of glass pieces in the food served on 8.6.2006. This report purportedly is also signed by some person. Who was the person, signing the report, nothing is made clear by the complainants. Neither the person or coach attendant is examined, to prove such report, contained in passenger opinion card. Even otherwise, in due course, such opinion card ought to have been submitted to some official of the Indian Railway. If it was done so, then we fail to understand, how the complainant got copy of the same. He has neither examined any official of the Indian Railway, to prove that had submitted opinion card Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 to the coach attendant. Neither Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are certified copies of the opinion card. In these circumstances, Ld. counsel for opposite party, Ms Vijay Sharma Adv. rightly contended that passenger opinion cards are available in the platform and complainant himself filled and attached copy thereof alongwith the complaint. He never submitted it to any railway official, nor made complaint about the food. We have no reason, to discard such contention of opposite party. Because no proof has forthcome, about furnishing Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 opinion card by the complainant to the official of railway and then obtaining copies of the same from them.

    11- Simply, the report in “Punjab Kesri” that piece of glass was found in the food served to a passenger in Shatabadi, would not be any proof in support of the allegations.

    12- We can not believe version of the complainant that he chewed the food and then swallowed glass pieces alongwith the food, causing vomiting to him and also stomach pain. He after feeling such stomach pain, got himself medically examined from the doctor. But that doctor has been withheld. We have no proof that actually, complainant swallowed, alongwith the food, glass pieces, causing damage to his stomach and then took medicines or consulted a doctor. In the absence of proof, such plea can not be believed. Even otherwise, it is difficult to digest allegations that while eating food, swallowed glass pieces. Because rightly pointed by the ld. counsel for opposite parties that tongue of a person, is so sensitive organ that whenever any hard substance alongwith the food is chewed, the same is detected by the tongue and the person instead of swallowing such food, would immediately put and throw it out of his mouth. Hence, she argued that such plea is also false that he swallowed, alongwith the food, glass pieces, causing pain in his stomach.

    13- In this case, best evidence has been withheld by the complainant, by not producing the doctor or railway employee to whom, had given opinion card Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. Neither any co-passenger is produced, to support his allegations. Therefore, in these circumstances, we are of the view that complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on part of the opposite party. Hence, finding no merit in the complaint, the same stands dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of order be provided to the parties free of charge. File be completed and consigned to record room.

  5. #5
    Unregistered Guest

    Arrow Complaint against System at Subzi Mandi Railway Station

    Dear Sir
    Yesterday I went to Subzi mandi Railway Station for a TATKAL reservation, but due to sturdy of agents, I could not take tatkal ticke. This was due to the behaviour of Police there at duty. The police did not forbid any of the agent to be in proper queue, but they only forbidden the general public only. When new agent came the previous agent standing at first in the line adjust new agent with him.
    Some time if any person wants to forbid them , they were agressive to fight. Lastly only agents could be able to book the ticket .
    7-8 male and 2-3 female agents are there who daily goes first in que due to the mercy of policemen on duty.
    At reservation counter also the booking clerk give them 3-4 or more ticket but they never give two ticket to general public.
    In this situation how can a general public can get the benifit of TATKAL ticket. So I am requesting you please moove farward and do any action so that general public can get benifit of TATKAL scheme ticket benifit.

    Rajnish Sharma
    Pratap Nagar New Delhi

  6. #6

    Default Compalint regarding no refund as promised by IRCTC railways

    Dear Sir,
    I have cancelled two tickets bearing these PNR Numbers:-4546119759 & 4334044216
    and I had to get refunds of Rs.2153/- & 2180/- respectively But, I still have'nt received my
    refund from the bank which I had booked through internet booking from the IRCTC website.
    The refund date was supposedly on the 14th/10/2011 But its been more than a week and I
    am still wondering if I will get back my hard earned money.I am very upset with this IRCTC
    railway booking scheme through internet booking which if said to make life easier but then now
    I think and feel that it only makes your life more miserable.They are Scamsters who con we
    consumer's like a dog and a bone.I am very annoyed and anyone who's doing this kind of
    dirty work will be cursed by me and a whole lot of people out there & for the people who are
    booking tickets through IRCTC online "PLEASE BEWARE" of cancellation. Dont think of Your refund
    coz You will never get it back because of these Scamsters....Frauds and Cheaters out there.
    If any one whosoever can help me out of what can be done to get back my refund.I'll be very
    grateful.But for now I will just think that my money has been given to some kind of Charity.
    I hope 'CONSUMER COURT' is reading this and can be of some assistance.

    Thanking You
    Yours Sincerellly
    Patrick Tan

  7. #7
    stiplaka1 Guest

    Default Tkt status difference

    Dear Sir ,
    I have booked two tkts with the following details.
    1.Transaction ID 0384454011; PNR No.: 8546861745 ; Dewas to Mumbai for my Parents. which is a waitlisted Tkt.Dt 01/11/2011
    and so i booked another Tkt No. 2 with Transaction ID 0384458026 ; PNR No.: 8159749720 ; dtd 02/11/2011 which was RAC.
    The current status of the tkt no. 1 is WL 33 , 34 ; and for tkt No. 2 is RAC 80 , 81.
    Now the issue here is whenever i take the ERS print of the tkts. the status is as below.
    Tkt No.1 : Status on the IRCTC site : WL 34 / 35 ; after taking the ERS print WL 63 / 64
    Tkt No.2 : Status on the IRCTC site : RAC 80 / 81 ;after taking the ERS print RAC 84/85.
    So finally after taking the print it shoots up. This has created uncertainity in my parents mind that on the day of Travel it should not happen that the Rac also converts to WL and finally they won't be able to board the train.
    I want to bring this to your attention and request you immediate action on this .
    This seems to be some fraudalent activities been carried out and in turn harrasing the passengers who do not wish to buy tkts from the agents.
    Please take immediate action in this regard. so that my parents can travel without any hurdle.
    Akalpit Shukla

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Ticket status Got changed from RAC to Wait List

    Please look at attachment screenshot. It will give you the clear picture that how Indian railway is working. I had a E-ticket booked in Gareeb Rath for today i.e. 26-10-2011.

    It was Wait List Ticket, today I was keep on monitoring the status of WL from morning it was 6,7,8 & 9 in morning after that going down slowly. I was monitoring it through Indian Railway websites. Finally at 4:40 PM it was showing me RAC 45/RAC 44, WL 1 & WL 2 at this moment the chart was not prepared once the chart got prepared the whole story got changed instead of reducing down the RAC & Wait List got converted to WL 11,12,13 & 14.

    I do have art effect with me. Please find the attachment for the same.

    I want to bring this to your attention and request you immediate action on this .
    This seems to be some fraudalent activities been carried out and in turn harrasing the passengers who do not wish to buy tkts from the agents.
    Please take immediate action in this regard.

    Manoj Kumar Singh

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Compliant on IRCTC

    Dear Sir,
    I have booked 4 tickets From Vijayawada To Thirupathi through ITCTC (online railway reservationn) on 14th Oct 2011, user Name -sintula Transaction ID- 0404099773 and 0404103048.the amount has been debited in my account (1500) and the tickets are not conformed.so Please take immediate action in this regard

    Tulasi Reddy

  10. #10
    Unregistered Guest

    Default Online Reservation Failed - Refund Money

    Dear Sir,
    I have booked 2 tickets From Chennai Egmore To Nagercoil Jn through ITCTC (online railway reservationn) on 16th Nov 2011,Transaction ID- 0416965869.the amount has been debited in my account (610) and the tickets are not conformed.

    Ticket History
    Pnr Number: 0 Transaction ID: 0416965869 Train No: 12633
    Train Name: KANYAKUMARI EXP From Station: (MS) To Station: (NCJ)
    Date Of Journey: 14-Dec-2011 Class: SL Boarding: (MS)
    Resv Upto: (NCJ) Date Of Booking: 15-Nov-2011 Total Fare: Rs 610.00

    Refund Details
    Cancelled Date: 15-NOV-2011 Refund Amount: Rs 610 Refund Status: Approved
    Receipt Number: 221496 Refund Date:
    Approved: Approved for Refund Refunded: Refunded in Account
    Sent for Refund: Refund Instructions given to Bank

    When I get money. so Please take immediate action in this regard

    Email: joysmcom@gmail.com

  11. #11
    Unregistered Guest

    Unhappy reservation seats occupied unauthorisedly by other

    I booked two tickets from Saharanpur to Ghaziabad by train no. 14682(JUC NDLS Express) date 29 Nov, 2011. I was alloted seats in D1 Coach (class 2S). But as we boarded the train, I was really shocked to see that people without reservation tickets were getting into the reservation coaches and occupying the reserved seats. They dealt with us very rudely saying that the are are no reservation coaches in the train and that these were all General. With much difficulty and after a lot of arguments, we forced the other people who had unauthorisedly occupied our seats to get up. But still we were four people on three seaters and there was no control on the crowd of passengers entering the coach. Passengers kept coming and pushing, causing trouble. There was no elbow room to move in there. The journey had been very uncomfortable and inconvenient. I wonder what is the use of such reservation. Moreover there was nobody to check the tickets.
    So kindly do the needful at the earliest so that there is a check on the entry of unauthorised people in the coaches so that the same inconvenience is not experienced again in future.

  12. #12
    Unregistered Guest

    Default Related to transaction without ticket booking



  13. #13
    rajeev0009 Guest

    Angry Ticket automatically cancelled by IRCTC

    I have booked a ticket through IRCTC. AT the time of booking it was showing successfully reservation. After some time when I check it, It was cancelled automatically and no refund is also come back in my account. This will lead big loss for me since ticket are not available now.
    Please do proper action against IRCTC.
    Booked ticket PNR : 2328024990
    UserID : rajeev0009

  14. #14
    GINITEX Guest

    Default Update for email id

    New email id is sunita@ginitex.com
    mob no - 9594417811
    sunita pacheco

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2011


    S# Select Transaction Id. PNR Number. TDR Entry Date Status
    1 0418544003 6103697360 27-Dec-2011 TDR Entered
    2 0401824648 6502137796 26-Oct-2011 CCM Registered
    3 0334970663 8411140075 04-May-2011 Forwarded To Railway

+ Submit Your Complaint
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. IRCTC online
    By Raman. in forum Railways
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-11-2011, 02:09 PM
  2. Railway Ticket reservation
    By Tanu in forum Railways
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-21-2010, 03:14 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-14-2009, 10:42 PM
  4. Reservation Center, Churchgate, Indian Railway
    By Bhavin A in forum Bad Response or Bribe
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-07-2009, 02:15 PM
  5. Regarding 2.5% charge on IRCTC Railway ticket
    By Mohd Arkam Ansari in forum Railways
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-23-2009, 04:56 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts