12 hrs ago
Railway Toilet Mismatch Brings Rs 20,000 Consumer Compensation
Bhartendu Sood booked a railway room for Rs 333.
The website said the room had a western toilet.
When he arrived, the room instead had an Indian toilet.
Because of his age and health problems, he said the promised toilet was important.
He did not use the room and returned the keys.
He also said the railway authorities did not return his booking money.
Sood took the matter to a consumer commission.
A district commission ordered a refund and Rs 3,000 in compensation.
The state commission later said that amount was too small and increased it to Rs 20,000.
Bhartendu Sood, 72, booked a Rs 333 retiring room at Chittorgarh station through IRCTC for May 12, 2024.
The IRCTC portal showed a western toilet, but Sood found an Indian toilet and returned the keys without using the room.
Sood said station authorities acknowledged the deficiency and that his promised refund was not credited.
The District Consumer Commission ordered a Rs 333 refund with 9% interest and awarded Rs 3,000 for mental agony, harassment and litigation costs.
The Chandigarh State Commission raised the compensation to Rs 20,000, inclusive of litigation expenses, while retaining the refund and interest order.
- Who
- Bhartendu Sood, the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation, and the Railways were involved in the consumer dispute.
- What
- A consumer commission increased compensation after a booked railway room did not have the western toilet advertised on the IRCTC portal.
- Where
- The retiring room was at Chittorgarh railway station, and the appeal was heard by the Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
- When
- The room was booked for May 12, 2024; the district order was issued on March 2, 2026, and the state commission enhanced compensation on September 22.
- Why
- The commission found that the promised facility was not provided, Sood’s money was retained, and he faced inconvenience, harassment and expenses while seeking redressal.
Sood's Position
IRCTC and Railways' Position
Responsibility for the inaccurate facility information
Sood's Position
Sood argued that the service provided did not match the western toilet shown on the IRCTC portal and that this amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
IRCTC and Railways' Position
IRCTC said the retiring room was managed and maintained by the Railways, while its portal information came from railway data through the Passenger Reservation System; it said it had no independent role in verifying or changing the information.
Refund of the booking amount
Sood's Position
Sood said he returned the keys without using the room and was initially assured that the Rs 333 booking amount would be refunded, but the money was not credited.
IRCTC and Railways' Position
Western Railway later denied the refund on the stated ground that the service had been availed, according to the order. The Railways also denied responsibility, saying the dispute concerned IRCTC and the Chittorgarh facility under the Ratlam division.
Appropriate compensation
Sood's Position
Sood appealed against the Rs 3,000 award, arguing that it did not adequately reflect his time, expense and effort in pursuing the grievance.
IRCTC and Railways' Position
The respondents' position included opposition to responsibility for the facility, while the state commission ultimately held that the earlier amount was merely token and inadequate.
Key facts
- Booking amount
- Rs 333
- Booked facility
- Retiring room at Chittorgarh railway station
- Advertised facility
- Western toilet
- Facility found
- Indian toilet
- Original compensation
- Rs 3,000, ordered by the district commission
- Enhanced compensation
- Rs 20,000, inclusive of litigation expenses
- Refund interest
- 9% simple interest from the date of payment; 12% from default if the order is not complied with within 30 days
Quotes
Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
State consumer commission hearing Bhartendu Sood’s appeal
“The amount awarded is, in our considered view, merely token in nature and falls considerably short of the standard of reasonable compensation.”
indianexpress.com
“A consumer cannot be left to bear the burden of avoidable litigation.”
indianexpress.com
Sources
Related news
Railways Ordered to Pay ₹75,000 Over Crowded Reserved Berths
Railways Ordered to Pay Rs 35,000 After Train Delay
Chandigarh Consumer Commission Orders Refund Over Substandard Holiday Stays
Jharkhand Consumer Court Orders Railways to Pay ₹35,000
Consumer Commission Orders Holiday Firm to Pay Rs 95,000
Himachal Commission Orders HRTC to Pay ₹50,029 Over Fare
ESDS Shares Surge 302% as AI Contract Drives Optimism
Choice Says IRCTC Warrants Premium as Businesses Expand
Jai Hind College Symposium Examines AI’s Future in Tourism
Railway UPI Tickets Above Rs 2,000 Face Rs 5 MDR
