The Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has increased the compensation awarded to a 72-year-old traveler from Rs 3,000 to Rs 20,000 after he was provided an Indian-style toilet instead of the western toilet advertised on the ticketing portal for a railway retiring room.
A bench comprising presiding member Padma Pandey and member Rajesh K Arya modified the earlier district forum order, ruling that the initial sum was merely token in nature and failed to meet the standard of fair redressal. Alongside the enhanced payout, the state commission directed the refund of the Rs 333 booking fee with 9 per cent simple interest calculated from the date of payment.
The respondents must comply with the directions within 30 days of receiving the certified order. Failure to do so will elevate the interest on the booking refund to 12 per cent from the date of default, while the Rs 20,000 compensation will accrue interest at 9 per cent until realized.
Dispute Over Promised Amenities
The matter originated on May 12, 2024, when Bhartendu Sood reserved a retiring room at Rajasthan’s Chittorgarh railway station through the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation portal. Given his age and physical limitations, Sood specifically relied on portal listings indicating that the room was equipped with a western toilet.
Upon reaching Chittorgarh station, Sood discovered that the room contained an Indian toilet. He reported the discrepancy to station officials, who acknowledged the lapse. Sood handed back the keys without occupying the room and was initially assured of a full reimbursement of his Rs 333 payment.
The promised refund never materialized. Western Railway subsequently rejected his claim on the premise that the service had been utilized. Faced with the denial, Sood approached the consumer commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, seeking a refund with interest, legal expenses of Rs 10,000, and compensation for harassment and mental distress.
Apportionment Of Blame Between Agencies
During the initial proceedings, IRCTC and the railway administration disclaimed liability. IRCTC argued that it functions independently from the Railways, which directly manages the Chittorgarh retiring rooms, including physical infrastructure such as beds and washrooms. The catering corporation maintained that its portal merely displays data pulled from the railway Passenger Reservation System without any mechanism for independent verification or revision.
The Railways conversely maintained that the grievance fell within the purview of IRCTC and the local retiring-room management under the Ratlam division.
On March 2, 2026, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I in Chandigarh partly allowed Sood’s complaint. It ordered the return of the Rs 333 booking charge at 9 per cent simple interest, along with a combined sum of Rs 3,000 covering mental agony, harassment, and litigation expenses.
State Commission Rejects Nominal Relief
Sood challenged the district forum’s ruling, arguing that the Rs 3,000 award was inadequate considering the time, effort, and financial resources required to pursue the grievance. He also noted that combining legal expenses with general damages obscured the actual cost of litigation.
Upholding the appeal, the state commission stated that compensation in consumer disputes must not be confined to actual monetary loss alone. The bench held that monetary awards must reflect the severity of the deficiency, the conduct of the service provider, the retention of the consumer’s money, and the inconvenience caused. The panel emphasized that aggrieved citizens should not be forced to shoulder the financial and personal burdens of avoidable litigation to secure basic service standards.
