For delay in `120 refund, railways to pay `15,000
Northern Railways will have to pay `15,000 to a 72-year old resident of Panchkula who had to wait for almost half a year to get the refund of `120 for a cancelled ticket. When he did indeed get the pay order for `120, encashing it would have cost him `250!chandigarh Updated: Oct 02, 2013 00:58 IST
Northern Railways will have to pay `15,000 to a 72-year old resident of Panchkula who had to wait for almost half a year to get the refund of `120 for a cancelled ticket. When he did indeed get the pay order for `120, encashing it would have cost him `250!
Om Prakash Asija then moved the district consumer disputes redressal forum against the station superintendent of Chandigarh and the chief commercial manager (refunds) of Northern Railways.
Agreeing with him, the forum held, "The sequence of events clearly proves the lethargy with which railways handled the matter… In today's times, when senior citizens are accorded special schemes/benefits, the complainant has been unnecessarily made to wait for the refund of a petty amount and thereby put to a lot of harassment and mental agony."
Asija's harassment started when he booked a ticket of the Jan Shatabdi Express for New Delhi on June 25 last year by paying `240, but later got it cancelled as he could not undertake the journey due to an emergency. As advised, Asija surrendered the ticket to the chief ticket inspector and forwarded the receipt along with an application to the chief commercial manager (refunds), Northern Railways, New Delhi.
It was only on December 11, 2012, that he received a pay order of `120 from the manager, and it was made payable at Amritsar. When Asija went to the bank, he was told that `250 would be deducted as collection charges. So he returned the pay order and sought proper refund.
In its defence, the railways submitted that the pay order was made as per rules, and a replacement pay order was in fact sent to Asija on February 1 this year.
But the forum, in its order of September 26, observed, "Railways sat on the matter of refund and failed to explain the delay of more than five months except to state that it was procedural."