Western toilet promised on IRCTC portal but not provided; consumer court orders Rs 20,000 compensation

AI generated image used for representative purpose

NEW DELHI: The Chandigarh state consumer commission has enhanced compensation awarded to a 73-year-old senior citizen after a retiring room booked at Chittorgarh railway station did not have the Western toilet promised on the IRCTC portal. The commission increased the compensation from Rs 3,000 to Rs 20,000 and retained the refund of Rs 333. The order was passed on September 22, 2026.Why did the senior citizen approach the consumer commission?According to the commission order, the complainant, then 72, booked a retiring room at Chittorgarh railway station through IRCTC for May 12, 2024. He relied on the portal’s assurance that the room had a Western toilet, which he said was essential because of his age and infirmities.When he arrived at the station, he found that the room had an Indian toilet instead. He complained to the station authorities, who admitted the deficiency and returned the room keys without him using the facility.The complainant said IRCTC initially admitted the fault and assured him of a refund, but the amount was not credited. Western Railway later denied the refund on the ground that the service had been availed.He approached the district consumer commission seeking a refund of Rs 333 with 18% interest, compensation for harassment and mental agony, and Rs 10,000 towards litigation expenses. The district commission partly allowed his complaint and directed the opposite parties to refund Rs 333 with 9% interest and pay Rs 3,000 as compensation for mental agony, harassment and litigation costs.The senior citizen appealed against the Rs 3,000 award, arguing that it did not adequately cover the hardship, inconvenience, time and expense involved in pursuing the complaint.IRCTC opposed the enhancement, saying the amount awarded by the district commission was reasonable. It also pointed out that the complainant had appeared in person before the district commission.The Railways also opposed the appeal and challenged the joint liability imposed on it, arguing that there was no independent act or omission attributable to it.Why did the state commission increase the compensation?The bench comprising presiding member Padma Pandey and member Rajesh K Arya noted that the issue before it was whether Rs 3,000 was adequate compensation for the inconvenience and hardship suffered by the complainant.“The amount awarded is, in our considered view, merely token in nature and falls considerably short of the standard of reasonable compensation contemplated under the consumer protection jurisprudence. It is trite that compensation in consumer proceedings is not restricted to reimbursement of the actual pecuniary loss demonstrably suffered by a consumer,” the commission said.The commission added that the compensation in consumer cases can also cover mental agony, harassment and inconvenience caused by a deficiency in service. It referred to Supreme Court and national consumer commission decisions on compensation for established deficiency in service.The commission further added that the compensation should have a reasonable connection with the nature of the deficiency, the conduct of the service provider, the period for which the consumer was deprived of the service and the time and expense involved in seeking redress.“A consumer cannot be left to bear the burden of avoidable litigation occasioned by the service provider’s failure to discharge its corresponding obligation while being compensated only by a purely token amount which neither adequately redresses the injury suffered nor reflects the consequences of the deficiency established on record,” the bench noted.It said the respondents had failed to provide the service as promised, retained the complainant’s money and caused him inconvenience, mental agony and harassment.The commission concluded that the Rs 3,000 amount should be increased and enhanced it to Rs 20,000 as a lump sum towards mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.“Accordingly, in the interest of justice and to ensure that the compensation bears a reasonable and proportionate relationship to injury and inconvenience occasioned to the appellant, we deem it appropriate to enhance the said amount from Rs 3,000 to Rs 20,000 towards compensation for mental agony and harassment inclusive of litigation expenses,” the bench further noted.What did the commission order?The Chandigarh state consumer commission directed IRCTC and Indian Railways to: