Man books IRCTC railway room for Rs 333, finds Indian toilet instead of Western; gets Rs 20,000 compensation

A Chandigarh consumer commission has enhanced compensation to Rs 20,000 for a 72-year-old man who was denied a refund after finding that a retiring room booked through the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC) at Chittorgarh railway station had an Indian toilet instead of the western toilet listed on the booking portal, as per the judgement seen by ET. The man had returned the keys without using the room after discovering the discrepancy in May 2024, but his booking amount of Rs 333 was not refunded. In an order dated September 22, the Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission raised the compensation from Rs 3,000 awarded by the district commission, describing the earlier amount as merely “token” and inadequate.

The state commission, comprising presiding member Padma Pandey and member Rajesh K Arya, was hearing an appeal filed by Bhartendu Sood seeking enhanced compensation for mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses following the District Consumer Commission-I, Chandigarh’s order of March 2, 2026.

“The amount awarded is, in our considered view, merely token in nature and falls considerably short of the standard of reasonable compensation,” the commission said on September 22. It observed that compensation in consumer proceedings is not limited to reimbursement of actual financial loss, adding that consumer fora are intended to provide effective and meaningful redressal for deficiency in service.


Also Read: Man married wife second time after his iPhone overheated and burst, deleting wedding photos, court ordered Rs 70,000 payout

What happened at Chittorgarh railway station?

According to the commission’s order, Sood booked a retiring room at Chittorgarh railway station through the IRCTC portal for May 12, 2024. The listing showed that the room had a western toilet, a facility he considered essential because of his age and infirmities.

However, when Sood reached the station, he found that the room had an Indian toilet instead. He raised the issue with the station authorities, who, according to the order, admitted the deficiency. Sood returned the keys without using the room.

He was initially assured that the booking amount would be refunded. However, the Rs 333 was not credited to him. The order records Sood’s case that Western Railway subsequently denied the refund, stating that the service had been availed.

Sood then approached the consumer commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. He sought a refund of Rs 333 with interest, compensation for mental agony and harassment, and Rs 10,000 towards litigation expenses.

What did IRCTC and the Railways argue?

IRCTC argued that it and the Railways were separate entities with distinct responsibilities. It submitted that the retiring room at Chittorgarh was managed and maintained by the Railways, including its beds, furniture and toilets.

IRCTC also said the information displayed on its portal was sourced from railway data through the Passenger Reservation System and that it had no independent role in verifying or modifying those details.

The Railways denied responsibility as well, arguing that the dispute concerned IRCTC and the Chittorgarh retiring-room facility under the Ratlam division.

The district consumer commission nevertheless partly allowed Sood’s complaint on March 2, 2026. It directed the respondents to refund Rs 333 with 9% simple interest from the date of payment and pay Rs 3,000 towards mental agony, harassment and litigation costs.

Also Read: Elon Musk flying car explained: How does Tesla Roadster work? Timeline of a car that was first revealed in 2008

Why did the state commission enhance the compensation?

Sood appealed against the Rs 3,000 award, arguing that it was inadequate considering the time, effort and expense involved in pursuing the grievance. He also contended that combining compensation with litigation costs made the actual legal expenses unclear.

The state commission agreed that the compensation needed to reflect the deficiency in service, the conduct of the service provider and the time, effort and expense incurred by the consumer in seeking redressal.

It also took into account the failure to provide the promised facility, the retention of Sood’s money and the resulting inconvenience and harassment.

“A consumer cannot be left to bear the burden of avoidable litigation,” the commission said, enhancing the compensation from Rs 3,000 to Rs 20,000, inclusive of litigation expenses.

What did the commission order?

The commission directed the respondents to refund the booking amount of Rs 333 with 9% simple interest from the date of payment. They have been given 30 days from receipt of the certified order to comply.

If the respondents fail to make the payment within that period, the refund amount will carry interest at 12% from the date of default. The Rs 20,000 compensation will carry interest at 9% from the date of default.