Skip to main content

Ticket dispute with IRCTC: Northern Railway to pay 2K to man

A consumer forum here has directed Northern Railways to pay a compensation of Rs 2000 to a man for harassing him by not settling his dispute with IRCTC on ticket fare refund.

The New Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, presided by C K Chaturvedi, asked the Northern Railways to pay the amount to one Sunil Kumar Mishra, who had sought refund of ticket fare not availed by him.

"...We hereby implead Northern Railway through Chairman, Railway Board as a necessary party to direct it to arrange refund of the arrears immediately in the case to complainant and pay compensation of Rs 2000 for harassment and the cost for litigation charges," the forum's bench, also comprising its members S R Chaudhary and Ritu Garodia, said.

Mishra had told the forum that he had booked two train tickets on April 13, 2013 for himself and his daughter in Seemanchal Express and made a payment of Rs 3170 by credit card to IRCTC.

However, on the date of journey, only his ticket was confirmed while his daughter's ticket remained wait-listed even after preparation of the reservation chart.

Thereafter, he did not avail his confirmed ticket and sought refund of both tickets from IRCTC.

Later, in his emails to the IRCTC to check the status of refund, Mishra had expected that due to wait-listed ticket and no journey performed, both fares would be returned.

However, no refund was made by the railways.

Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/ticket-dispute-with-irctc-northern-railway-to-pay-2k-to-man-114090800587_1.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more