In a significant consumer grievance redressal, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, addressed the case of Tarun Chaurasia v. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd (IRCTC) and Another (Consumer Complaint No. 183/2024). The case stemmed from the complainant’s distressing experience at the IRCTC Executive Lounge at Platform 16 of New Delhi Railway Station. Despite paying ₹224 for the lounge’s premium services, Mr. Tarun Chaurasia encountered unsanitary conditions, broken facilities, and the absence of promised amenities like newspapers, television, and operational train information displays.
The complainant, represented by Advocate Ms. Aashima Kalra, alleged a significant deficiency in services and sought compensation of ₹4,00,000 for damages and legal costs. IRCTC, represented by Advocate Mr. Vipan Kumar, argued against the allegations, asserting that the lounge was under a contract with R.K. Associates & Hoteliers Pvt. Ltd., the second respondent, who defaulted on maintaining the agreed-upon standards.
Legal Issues:
The Commission focused on the following pivotal legal issues:
1. Deficiency in Services: Was there a failure to deliver the promised high-standard amenities, as advertised by IRCTC and its contractor?
2. Liability for Substandard Facilities: Should IRCTC, as the supervisory authority, be held accountable alongside its contractor for subpar facilities and negligence?
3. Evidence of Deficiency: Whether the complainant’s claims, supported by video evidence and a lack of rebuttal from the contractor, established service deficiencies.
Court Observations and Findings:
The Commission, presided over by Mr. Hemanshu Mishra with members Ms. Arti Sood and Mr. Narayan Thakur, thoroughly examined the evidence. The complainant’s digital evidence, including videos and photographs, vividly demonstrated the deteriorated condition of the lounge. Key observations included:
1. Poor Restroom Facilities: “The restroom facilities were found to be in an extremely poor state, with deplorable conditions that rendered them virtually unusable,” stated the order.
2. Failure to Meet Promised Standards: IRCTC and its contractor failed to uphold their commitment to providing world-class amenities akin to airport lounges.
3. Impact on National Image: “Public amenities in such executive lounges reflect the image of the nation and establishment,” the court remarked, emphasizing the need for superior standards.
IRCTC’s defence—that it was not directly responsible due to the subcontract—was rejected, as the court held IRCTC accountable as the supervisory authority. The second respondent, having failed to appear, was proceeded against ex-parte.
Court’s Decision:
The court ordered:
– Compensation: ₹10,000 to be paid by R.K. Associates and ₹5,000 by IRCTC to the complainant for mental agony and harassment.
– Litigation Costs: ₹7,500 jointly by the respondents.
– Lounge Repairs: Immediate repair and enhancement of the lounge facilities, with compliance to be reported within 45 days.
– Public Accountability: The contractor to deposit ₹20,000 into the District Consumer Legal Aid Fund.
The court observed, “The amenities must not merely meet premium standards but must never fall below basic expectations.”
