- RTI query reveals banking frauds of ₹ 2.05 Trillion reported in the last 11 years
- 509 per cent rise in cases under child labour law: Study
- Don't pay 500/- for answer sheet now- Supreme Court says if Answer sheet is asked under RTI, RTI Fees will be governed
Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'ticket refund'.
Found 6 results
callcenjobs posted a topic in Post your RTI Success hereDear Members, Kindly view the following order that is an example of the victory of the common traveller who stands up against a mighty organisation and wins due to two very important acts: a) RTI ACT gives him the information b) Consumer protection act gives him justice and compensation. IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAMBALPUR IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAMBALPUR. CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.83 OF 2008 Prabin Kumar Hota, S/O. Late Banamali Hota, R/O. Maitrinagar, Gopalmal, Budharaja, Sambalpur. …….. Complainant. Vrs. 1. Union of India represented through its Officers Chief Commercial Manager, E Co. Railway,Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar 2. Divisional Commercial Manager, E Co.Rilway , Sambalpur Division, Sambalpur. 3. Squad I/C.Chief Commercial Manager, E Co Railway, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar. 4. Public Information Officer, O/O. The D.R.M., Sambalpur Division, E Co Railway,Sambalpur. …….. Opp.Parties. For Complainant: Shri N.K.Sarangi, Shri G,Pradhan & Shri N.K.Sribas, Advocates. For Opp.parties : Shri A.K.Senapati, Advocate. DATE OF ORDER : 02.7.2010 P R E S E N T : SHRI D.K.TIPATHY, PRESIDENT A N D DR.S.MISHRA, MEMBER. : O R D E R : SHRI D.K.TRIOPATHY, PRESIDENT: - The complainant Prabin Kumar Hota has filed this complaint against the Union of India represented through the Chief Commercia Manager, East Coast Railway and 3 others. The case of the complainant in short is that on 18.3.2008 he boarded the Bhubaneswar-Bolangir Super Fast Express train No.2893 on the strength of a Monthly Season Ticket (MST) No.X-66798104 from Sambalpur to Bolangir. The O.P.No.3 and his Squads were having ticket checking in the said train and on demand the complainant had shown the said ticket to them. But they objected the journey in the said train by virtue of the said MST stating that the said ticket is for ordinary mail and express and not for Super Fast express train. Therefore, they fined and collected a sum of Rs.301/- as per Receipt No.12C019347 dt.18.3.2008. The complainant entertained doubt about collecting excess fare from him for which he filed an application under the R.T.I. Act before the Public Information Officer (P.I.O.)of the Office of the D.R.M., East Coast Railway, Sambalpur asking about charge of traveling in Super Fast Express on M.S.T. along with its terms and conditions and fine to be imposed on the passengers. The officer has supplied the information on 16.4.2008. He obtained the information as described in his complaint petition and alleged that Rs.43/- has been collected excess than the actual fare due. The O.P.No.2 has no right to collect such excess fare which is unfair trade practice and hence they are found guilty for deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act., on the basis of which he has filed this case praying for refund of the excess fare amount of Rs.43/-, compensation for mental agony and litigation expenses of Rs.16,000/- and other relief as deem proper. 2. The O.Ps appeared through their Lawyer and filed their show cause wherein they have admitted about the checking in the said train on that day and traveling of the complainant then. However, the claim of the complainant that he had shown the MST has been denied by them. It is alleged by the O.Ps that while the complainant was traveling in the said train, on demand of ticket by the ticket checking staff, he failed to produce the MST during his travel in the said train on that day for which they demanded Rs,.301/- which includes fine and actual fare etc. and issued receipt. Even if the MST showed by him, it was not valid to travel in the aforesaid Super Fast Express train. It has been admitted that the complainant applied under the R.T.I. Act for information according to which fine for adult travel in the said train, the excess fare is RS.250/-, super fast supplementary charge Rs.8/-, total Rs.258/-, apart from it , the said passenger had to pay basic fare of Rs.39/- and surcharge Rs.2/- totaling to Rs.299/-. So, the O.Ps have admitted that the ticket collector has erroneously collected Rs.51/- as fare, instead of Rs.49/- from the complainant and the same is a bonafide mistake. The allegation of the complainant that the Railway has collected excess fare is baseless, and hence the same is liable to be rejected. 3. The complainant has filed Xerox copies of original MST, Identity Card, and receipt showing Rs.301/- issued by the Railway and the information issued by the P.I.O. The undisputed facts between the parties may be summarized below: The travel of the complainant in the Super Fast express train on the said day and checking of ticket by the ticket checking staff are not disputed. 4. So. question arises as to whether the complainant had produced the MST or not before the Checking staff and the excess fare charged by the O.P. is Rs.43/- as alleged by the complainant or Rs.2/- as admitted by the O.Ps and if so, whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. 5. In this connection the complainant has filed the original MST which shows that he had purchased the said ticket on the same day that is on 18.3.2008 at 10.40 A.M. just before the arrival of the alleged train in the station and thereafter he boarded the said train. The aforesaid incident of checking of tickets took place in the train on the same day in between Bolangir and Sambalpur. So when the complainant was having a valid ticket at that time for the said destination, why he would not produce it before the checking staff of the O.Ps. It is the normal conduct of a human being that he would not act against his own interest. So knowing very well that he was having a valid MST, and if he would not produce it before the checking staff, it may expose him to humiliation, fine and to the extent of jail also. Man may speak lie but not the circumstances. Circumstances will speak for itself. So it is improbable to accept that complainant having MST had not produced it before the checking staff. For the reasons stated above, the defence plea of the O.Ps that the complainant did not produce the ticket at the time of checking before the checking staff seems to be false. A false defence will not sustain a charge but if there is other material, it would be an additional link to the guilt of the O/Ps. Hence it is concluded that the complainant had produced the MST before the checking staff at the time of checking and the defence plea that he did not produce the MST is not accepted. 6. Secondly, about the collection of excess fare, whether the O.Ps have collected excess fare of Rs.43/- or Rs.2/-, P.I.O. of the Railways has intimated that the basic fare from Sambalpur to Bolangir in Super Fast express is RS.39/-, excess fare Rs.250/-, Supplementary charge Rs.8/- and development charge Rs2/-, totaling to Rs299/- but the O.Ps have collected Rs.301/-. The O.Ps have fairly admitted that the Ticket collector erroneously collected Rs.2/- in excess. It is true that traveling in Super Fast Express train on the MST of ordinary mail and express train is not proper. However, the complainant was not without any valid ticket at that time for such destination and distance. Therefore, he has the right to travel in the train but not in Super Fast Express train, so, he is liable to pay fine to the extent which is provided under law and not more than that. As per the report of the P.I.O.,he was to pay excess fare of Rs.250/-, and he was not liable to pay the basic fare of Rs.39/-, for the same distance and time. O.Ps can not collect the basic fare charge through fine and also through the MST because it can not collect two fares for the same distance at the same time. 7. The O.Ps have admitted collection of Rs.2/- in excess. This itself is a deficiency in service but not only that collection of Rs.39/- is aso illegal. So, the O.Ps would have, after having knowledge about the same refunded the amount and beg excuse for the mistake of wrong done by its employee. But Railway though a public undertaking meant for public service resorted to falsehood by defending its wrong doing staff alleging it to be bonafide. Therefore, the O.Ps are not only liable to refund the excess amount collected, but also pay compensation for the deficiency in service and litigation expenses. 8. Now the issue is not only award of compensation but also, who will pay the amount determined by this Forum for the harassment and mental agony, the statutoty authority or it should be realized from those, who are responsible for it. In this case, the Ticket collector, who issued the ticket, has not only ignorant of the fare charge but also negligent and acted arbitrarily. 9. The controversy has been settled at rest by the highest court of the land in the case of (Lucknow Development Authority Vrs. M.K.Gupta) 1994(I) CCC page-278(NS) Speaking for the Division Bench of the Supreme Court, Justice R.M.Sahai has observed as follows: Crime and corruption thrives and prosper in the society due to lack of public resistance. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting succumbs to the pressure of undesirable functioning in offices in stead of standing against it. Therefore, the award of compensation for harassment by public authority not only compensates the individual satisfies him personally but helps in curing social evil. It may result in improving work, culture and help in changing the out look. ………………. A public functionary if he acts maliciously or oppressively and the exercise of power results in harassment and agony then it is not exercise of power but its abuse. No law provides protection against it. He, who is responsible for it, must suffer. ……….. The court further observed ‘Now I take it to be perfectly clear that if a public officer abuses his office either by an act of omission or commission and the consequences of that is an injury to an individual, an action may be maintained against such Public officer………….. Quoting the view of a foreign court , the Apex court has observed It is now thoroughly well established that no action will lie for doing That wrong the Legislature has authorized, if it be done without negligence although it does occasion damage to anyone, but an action does lie for doing what the Legislature has authorized, if it be done negligently. ………….. Where it is found that exercise of discretion was malafide and the complainant is entitled to compensation for mental and physical harassment then the officer can no more claim to be under protective cover. ……….. Hence the Apex court has laid down the law as follows: It is now imperative an implicit in the exercise of power that it should be for the sake of society when the court directs payment of damages or compensation against the state the ultimate sufferer is the common man. It is the tax payer’s money which is paid for inaction of those, who are entrusted under the Act of discharge their duties in accordance with law. It is, therefore, necessary that the Commission when it is satisfied that a complainant is entitled to compensation for harassment or mental agony or oppression which finding of course should be recorded carefully on material and convincing circumstances and not lightly, then it should further direct the department concerned to pay the amount to the complainant from the public fund immediately but to recover the same from those who are found responsible for such unpardonable behaviour. ……….. - 5 – At the end the court held: The amount of compensation of Rs.10,000 awarded by the Commission for mental harassment shall be recovered from such officers proportionately from their salary. ………… Even, apex court insisted for compliance to the Supreme Court within time fixed by the court. ………. 9. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision to the present case, we hold that admission of collection of excess charge of Rs.2/- is a deficiency in service by the O.Ps. Facts admitted require no proof. In addition to it, collection of Rs.39/-, the basic fare is an arbitrary action of the checking squad and contrary to the provision. Here the complainant has stated at para-10 that he is an officer of Western Electricity Supply Company and his prestige in society hampered on forcible collection of fare twice, the actual fare and excess fare of Rs.2/- by the Checking squad of the O.Ps. through the receipt in the train is not only arbitrary but also negligent and careless conduct of the Ticket collector, who has collected the fare and issued the said receipt. So, recovery of the amount and compensation from the salary of the concerned Ticket Collector will not only satisfy the individual complainant but also it would eradicate social evil and raise the efficiency of others. Hence, we hold:- The petition filed by the complainant against the O.Ps is allowed on context. The O.Ps are directed to refund the excess fare of Rs.41/-(Rupees Fortyone) recovered from the complainant. Claim of compensation of Rs.10,000/- by the complainant seems to be excessive, so the O.Ps are directd to pay compensation of Rs.4,000/-(Rupees Four thousand) and litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One thousand) within one month, which in our opinion to be equitable and proper, failing which it would carry interest at the rate of 9 (Nine) per cent per annum till recovery. During this month the O.Ps are directed to ascertain the Ticket Collector at fault, who had issued the receipt and collected the amount illegally on that day and recover the awarded amount from his salary and pay for the same. In case of non-compliance of the order within the stipulated time, complainant to take steps for execution of the order as per law. As it is a monetary liability, sentence of imprisonment would be passed U/s 27 of the C.P. Act, on default, if needed at the time of execution. SHRI D.K.TRIPATHY PRESIDENT DR.S.MISHRA, MEMBER. I agree. Dictated and corrected by me. PRESIDENT.
Help me to frame the RTI questions for non refund against e-ticket cancellation to Canara Bank / IRCTC
rameshraj posted a question in Ask for RTI SupportHi all, I have booked an e-ticket though IRCTC online. After 2-3 days due to unavoidable circumstances I cancelled the tickets online though IRCTC website. The IRCTC e-ticket cancellation report shows the status as “Refunded in Account”. I bank with CANARA BANK. according to rules the amount need to come to my account. But till today it didn't happened. I have written several mails to both the departments. now CANARA BANK SAYS THAT... IRCTC banker has not sent the amount yet..... IRCTC SAYS THAT Kindly note that we have refunded the amount as per the details. Please contact your bankers for confirmation with the given details. BUT..... As per online status of IRCTC the status is shown as “Refunded in Account”. I really got confused as to whom to file the RTI...??? I don't know where lies the ACTUAL PROBLEM..!!! Please help me in this regard...I really appreciate your guidance. Do also help me in writing the question...effective question which will get my money back... HOPE YOU PEOPLE WILL HELP
Hi Everybody ! i am s k tripathi , and need help from you all regarding refund of e tickets. Actually i was traveling by a waitlisted e-ticket in Kushinagar express from Gorakhpur to mumbai. And the TTE of coach charged me as without ticket along with penality saying that you can not travel by waitlisted E-Tickets AND your money will be automatically transferred to your booking account. In this regard i have done communication with IRCTC and they told you may get amount back while they will confirm from western railways mumbai. it is almost 3 month over and i have not received my refund.... what shall i do? please help me out in this regards thanking you all S K TRIPATHI DEFENCE SCIENTIST MAHATASHTRA INDIA
Sir, I have booked my railway reservation from jammutavi to lucknow journey dt 06-12-2010 through using website cleartrip.com. Unfortunately the train on that date stands cancel subsiquently i managed to come back by other means after two days. Then requested cleartrip for the refund of booking amount ,they replied that they have file tdr for the refund from IRCTC. After a long time has been elapsed but we have not recieved a single money from cleartrip. Whereas IRCTC told that maximum time to setee the tdr is 160 days.
I had booked a ticket through IRCTC in December 2009 and later I cancelled it as train was late for more than 3 hours. I had filed a TDR through IRCTC on 2nd Janurary 2009. After that I have sent lots of reminder to IRCTC for the refund but they simply replied that they have sent another reminder to CCM / NR but haven’t got any response. After lots of waiting I filed one RTI in 10th May 2010 (copy of the same is attached with this thread). I received a reply from irctc on 10 June 2010 for point 1, 2,4,5,7 that they have forwarded my application to CCM refund Northern Railway and irctc and they will send a suitable reply. For point 3 they replied that railways have been asked to ensure that cases are settled within 3 months from the date of receipt. It’s more than a month but I have not received any response from CCM or IRCTC office. I need help of RTI experts and help me in getting why tdr process is still not complete and why it’s taking that much time. Please guide me what should I do next. Please help! tdr.pdf
EAST COAST EXP (Train No.8645) was cancelled on 19th June due to breach and my friend had one ticket which was booked through IRCTC ( online) . He had already sent e mail for cancellation of particular ticket and as reply from IRCTC they filled up for TDR Process . But it already expent 5 ( five) months over and several times contacted over telephone, still the money is not refunded. Pl suggest me for onward transmission to get earlier payment.