Man books retiring room through IRCTC by paying Rs 333 for western bathroom, ends up with Indian toilet in the room; court orders Rs 20,000 compensation

The Chandigarh State Consumer Commission has increased the 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 raised the compensation from Rs 3,000 to Rs 20,000 while retaining the refund of Rs 333. The order was passed on September 22, 2026.

Read more: Bengaluru-Mumbai Vande Bharat Sleeper, fastest direct train between two cities, to be flagged off this month: Check schedule, stops, travel time, departure and arrival timings

Senior citizen books retiring room through IRCTC

According to the commission's 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 would have a Western toilet, which he said was necessary given his age and infirmities.

However, when he reached the station, he found that the room had an Indian toilet instead. He complained to the station authorities, who acknowledged the deficiency and took back the room keys without the complainant using the facility.

Room lacked promised Western toilet at Chittorgarh station

The complainant said IRCTC initially acknowledged the error and assured him that the booking amount would be refunded. However, the amount was not credited. Western Railway later denied the refund, claiming that the service had been availed.

Read more: Wipro's new bench policy: IT company extends bench time for junior- to mid-level employees; what is the new rule, when does it start and what it means

He then approached the district consumer commission, seeking a refund of Rs 333 with 18% interest, compensation for mental agony and harassment, and Rs 10,000 towards litigation expenses.

Passenger seeks refund and compensation from Railways

The district commission partly allowed his complaint and directed the opposite parties to refund Rs 333 with 9% interest. It also awarded Rs 3,000 as compensation for mental agony, harassment and litigation costs.

The senior citizen challenged the Rs 3,000 award before the state commission, arguing that it did not adequately compensate him for the hardship, inconvenience, time and expenses involved in pursuing the matter.

IRCTC opposed the plea for enhancement, maintaining that the compensation 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.

District commission awards Rs 3,000 compensation

The bench comprising presiding member Padma Pandey and member Rajesh K Arya considered whether the Rs 3,000 compensation awarded by the district commission was adequate 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 noted that compensation in consumer cases can also account for mental agony, harassment and inconvenience caused by a deficiency in service. It referred to decisions of the Supreme Court and National Consumer Commission concerning compensation for established deficiencies in service.

Senior citizen challenges ‘token’ compensation

The bench further observed that 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 expenses 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.

State commission raises compensation to Rs 20,000

The commission therefore increased the compensation from Rs 3,000 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.

IRCTC, Railways ordered to refund Rs 333

The Chandigarh State Consumer Commission directed IRCTC and Indian Railways to:

• Refund Rs 333 to the complainant with 9% simple annual interest from the date of payment
• Pay Rs 20,000 as lump-sum compensation for mental agony and harassment, including litigation expenses
• Make both payments within 30 days of receiving the certified copy of the order
• If the Rs 333 refund is not paid within 30 days, pay 12% simple annual interest on the amount from the date of default until realisation
• If the Rs 20,000 compensation is not paid within 30 days, pay 9% simple annual interest on the amount from the date of default until realisation