IRCTC ordered to pay Rs 3,100 after failing to refund Re 1 on cancelled ticket

It also awarded Rs 100 as compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, and Rs 3,000 towards the passenger’s litigation expenses. The commission, comprising president Krishnan K and member Beena KG, partly allowed the complaint and gave the corporation 30 days from receipt of the order to comply. 56 lakh after insurer rejected her surgery reimbursement claim A cancelled ticket and a disputed rupee The passenger had booked an AC three-tier ticket for Rs 553 on August 11, 2024, for a journey scheduled for August 20.

He cancelled it on August 17, more than 48 hours before the scheduled journey. According to the complaint, IRCTC deducted Rs 180 as cancellation charges and Rs 9 as GST, calculated at 5% of the cancellation charge. The commission recorded the refundable amount as Rs 341, but the passenger received Rs 340. That shortfall of Re 1 became the subject of the consumer complaint. Passenger sought compensation for confusion and breach of trust The complainant said receiving less than the amount due had caused confusion and mental agony, and amounted to a breach of trust.

He sought the unpaid Re 1, Rs 1 lakh as compensation for confusion, another Rs 1 lakh for breach of trust, and Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs. The commission did not grant the compensation amounts he sought. Instead, it limited compensation to Rs 100 and fixed litigation costs at Rs 3,000, while directing repayment of the outstanding rupee with interest. IRCTC’s response was rejected as late The Indian Express report added that IRCTC filed its version before the commission, but the response was rejected on the ground that it was barred by limitation.

The commission noted that the corporation had not justified the Re 1 deduction. It held that failing to refund the exact amount due constituted deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice. “Just because one rupee was paid less the said fact really counts, and the complainant is entitled to Rs 100 as compensation. The complainant is also eligible for litigation costs fixed at Rs 3,000,” the order stated.

The finding placed the focus on whether the passenger had received his full entitlement, rather than on how small the unpaid amount was. The operative direction required the corporation to “refund Re 1 with 9% interest” from August 17, 2024, until realisation, along with Rs 100 in compensation and Rs 3,000 in litigation costs. The financial relief therefore comprises Rs 3,101, plus the interest payable on Re 1.

Small amount, clear finding Although the disputed refund was only Re 1, the commission held IRCTC liable for failing to return the amount it recorded as payable. At the same time, it declined to award the much larger compensation sought by the passenger. The outcome separates the refund obligation from the scale of compensation beacuse the passenger was entitled to recover the shortfall, but the commission fixed a modest compensation amount and separately awarded the cost of pursuing the complaint.