Kerala man wins legal battle against IRCTC over Re 1 refund shortfall; gets 100x compensation from consumer commission

A Kerala consumer commission has ruled against the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC) in a dispute arising from a shortfall of just one rupee in a ticket refund. The complainant, a resident of Kasaragod, had booked a three-tier AC ticket on August 11, 2024, for travel on August 20, paying ₹553. He cancelled the booking on August 17, well beyond the 48-hour window before departure.

The Kasaragod District Consumer Commission found that IRCTC deducted ₹180 as cancellation charges plus 5 per cent GST amounting to ₹9. On a refund of ₹341 due to the passenger, only ₹340 was credited, leaving a gap of one rupee. The complainant alleged mental agony, confusion and breach of trust, and sought ₹2 lakh in damages, including ₹1 lakh each for mental distress and breach of trust, ₹5,000 in legal expenses and the missing rupee.

The commission, comprising President Krishnan K and member Beena KG, partly allowed the complaint. IRCTC was directed to refund the rupee with 9 per cent interest from the date of cancellation, August 17, 2024, until realisation, along with ₹100 as compensation and ₹3,000 towards litigation costs, to be paid within 30 days. The commission rejected IRCTC's submission on the ground that it was filed beyond the prescribed deadline, and noted that the corporation made no effort to justify the deduction. It held that failing to refund the exact balance amounted to a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.

For businesses handling refunds, the order reinforces that even negligible shortfalls can attract consumer liability when unexplained. Entities processing cancellations, chargebacks or reversals should ensure that deductions are documented, arithmetically verifiable and traceable to a stated policy or statutory levy. A one-rupee variance that cannot be justified may be treated as a service deficiency, exposing the entity to compensation, interest and litigation costs that far exceed the amount in dispute.

The ruling also und…