IRCTC told to pay Rs 3,101 over Re 1 short refund on cancelled ticket
By Aditi KulkarniEducation Writer, Peepals Bharat
Representative image: rupixen / Pixabay
A Kasaragod consumer commission ordered IRCTC to pay Rs 3,101 after it refunded Rs 340 instead of Rs 341 on a ticket cancelled on August 17, 2024.
What Happened
A district consumer commission in Kerala has ordered Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC) to pay a passenger Rs 3,101 after it refunded Re 1 less than it should have on a cancelled train ticket. The Kasaragod District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission found that the passenger was due a refund of Rs 341 but received Rs 340. It held that the short refund, for which IRCTC gave no reason, was a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice. The order, reported on October 30, 2026, was issued by commission president Krishnan K and member Beena KG.
Key Facts
- Forum: Kasaragod District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala.
- Refund due on the cancelled ticket: Rs 341; refund paid by IRCTC: Rs 340.
- The ticket was cancelled on August 17, 2024; IRCTC had deducted a cancellation charge and Rs 9 as 5% GST on that charge.
- Order: refund the Re 1 with 9% annual interest from August 17, 2024 until payment, plus Rs 100 compensation and Rs 3,000 litigation costs, within 30 days.
- The passenger had sought Rs 1 lakh for confusion and another Rs 1 lakh for breach of trust; the commission did not grant these.
- IRCTC's written version was not considered because it was filed after the time allowed, and the commission noted that IRCTC had given no reason for the lower refund.
Why It Matters
The amount at stake was tiny, but the principle is not. Train tickets are booked and cancelled online in very large numbers, and refunds are calculated automatically: the fare paid, minus a cancellation charge that depends on the class and the time of cancellation, minus GST on that charge. Most passengers never check the arithmetic. A difference of a rupee per ticket would go unnoticed by almost everyone, yet it could add up across a very large number of cancellations.
The commission's reasoning is that a service provider must refund exactly what its own rules say, and that if it pays less, it must explain why. IRCTC did not do that in this case. By treating the missing rupee as a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice, the commission applied the same standard it would apply to a much larger shortfall.
The order also shows how consumer commissions work in practice. A passenger does not need a lawyer to file a complaint at a district commission, and the commission can award compensation and the cost of the case. It also shows the limits: the passenger asked for Rs 2 lakh in total for confusion and breach of trust, but received Rs 100 in compensation and Rs 3,000 in costs, which the commission judged proportionate to the loss.
For travellers, the practical point is simple. When a ticket is cancelled, the refund statement shows the fare, the cancellation charge and the GST deducted. If the numbers do not add up, the passenger can first raise it with IRCTC and, if that fails, approach the district consumer commission.
| Item | Amount |
|---|---|
| Refund due, as found by the commission | Rs 341 |
| Refund paid by IRCTC | Rs 340 |
| Shortfall | Re 1, with 9% annual interest from August 17, 2024 |
| Compensation | Rs 100 |
| Litigation costs | Rs 3,000 |
Impact
Short-term: IRCTC has 30 days to pay the passenger, unless it appeals to the state consumer commission. The case may prompt other passengers to check their own refund statements.
Long-term: If similar complaints follow, IRCTC may need to review how its system rounds and calculates refunds, and to explain any deduction clearly in the refund message. Small but repeated errors in automated systems are exactly the kind of issue consumer law is designed to catch.
Who is affected: Passengers who book and cancel tickets online; IRCTC, which handles online railway ticketing; and consumer commissions, which handle such small-value complaints alongside much larger disputes.
Key Takeaway
A Kasaragod consumer commission has ordered IRCTC to pay Rs 3,101 to a passenger who was refunded Rs 340 instead of Rs 341 on a cancelled ticket, holding that even a Re 1 shortfall without explanation is a deficiency in service.
Questions and Answers
Why was IRCTC ordered to pay a Kerala passenger over Re 1?
The Kasaragod District Consumer Commission found that IRCTC refunded Rs 340 instead of the Rs 341 due on a cancelled ticket and gave no reason. It held this was a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.
How much does IRCTC have to pay?
IRCTC must refund the Re 1 with 9% annual interest from August 17, 2024, and pay Rs 100 as compensation and Rs 3,000 as litigation costs, a total of about Rs 3,101, within 30 days.
What deductions are made when a train ticket is cancelled?
A cancellation charge is deducted from the fare, and GST is charged on that cancellation charge. In this case IRCTC deducted Rs 9 as 5% GST on the cancellation charge. The refund is what remains.
What can a passenger do if a train ticket refund is short?
The passenger can first raise a complaint with IRCTC. If the issue is not resolved, a complaint can be filed with the district consumer commission, which can order a refund, compensation and costs.
Disclaimer: Prepared by the Peepals newsroom from publicly available sources with AI assistance. Information is accurate to the best of our knowledge at the time of publication and may change. Images may be representative. Not professional advice. Report an error via our contact page.
By Aditi Kulkarni, Education WriterCovers Education and more for Peepals Bharat. All stories by Aditi Kulkarni
Get the day's stories in your inbox
Peepals Weekly: the week decoded, free. One email a week, unsubscribe in one click.
Aditi Kulkarni is a pen name of the Peepals Global Editorial Team, which researches, fact-checks and publishes every story. The portrait is an illustration.
