Supreme Court: Award Valid Even If Passed After Mandate Expiry When Court Extends Time  ||  Jharkhand HC: Regular Bail Plea During Interim Bail is Not Maintainable under Section 483 BNSS  ||  Cal HC: Theft Claims and Public Humiliation Alone Don’t Amount To Abetment of Suicide U/S 306 IPC  ||  Delhi High Court: Elective Surgery Does Not Bar Grant of Interim Bail on Medical Grounds  ||  Delhi HC: Consensual Romance With Minor Nearing 18 May be Considered For Bail in POCSO Case  ||  Delhi HC: Not Named In FIR Doesn’t Matter If Financial Links Show Active Role in NDPS Offence  ||  Chhattisgarh HC: Rape is an Affront to Womanhood and a Brutal Violation of The Right To Life  ||  Supreme Court: Single Insolvency Petition Maintainable Against Linked Corporate Entities  ||  Supreme Court: Disputes are Not Arbitrable When the Arbitration Agreement is Alleged to be Forged  ||  Supreme Court: Temple Trust Does Not Qualify as an ‘Industry’ under the Industrial Disputes Act    

Consumer Educational and Research Society and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. - (Competition Commission of India) (28 Jun 2019)

When statutory rules to deal with grievance of IPs exists, no anti-competitive conduct can be said to have arisen warranting an investigation into matter

MANU/CO/0024/2019

MRTP/ Competition Laws

The present information has been filed, by Consumer Educational and Research Society ('IP-1') and Parul Choudhary ('IP-2'), under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002, against Union of India, Ministry of Railways ('OP-1') and Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. ('OP-2') alleging contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act.

The IPs have, prayed that an inquiry into the matter be conducted by the DG and subsequently relief may be granted under Section 27 of the Act. Further, the Informants have prayed that the OPs be directed (i) to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000, being the total forfeited fare, to IP-2 along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from various dates of payment, (ii) to alter its refund rules by discarding the said unfair condition, (iii) to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000 as cost to IP-2 and (iv) pass any other order or direction which the Hon'ble Commission deems fit and proper.

The Commission notes that, due to the statutory and regulatory framework, dominance of Indian Railways in the market of transportation of passengers through railways across India is not disputed. The Commission notes that OP-2 vide its letter addressed to OP-1 (with a copy to IPs) had informed that "No Refund of fare shall be admissible on the tickets having confirmed reservation in case the ticket is not cancelled or TDR not filed online upto four hours before the scheduled departure of the train".

The Commission further notes that, the Railway Passengers (Cancellation of Tickets and Refund of Fare) Rules-2015, has been notified in the Gazette by the Central Government. As per provisions of Rule No. 8(7) of the said rule, "No Refund of fare shall be admissible on the tickets having confirmed reservation in case the ticket is not cancelled or TDR not filed online upto four hours before the scheduled departure of the train". In the face of existence of statutory rules to deal with the grievance of IPs, no anti-competitive conduct can be said to have arisen in the present case, warranting an investigation into the matter. If there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs', it is for the IPs to initiate proceedings before an appropriate forum.

The Commission is of the opinion that there exists no prima facie case, and the information filed is closed forthwith under Section 26(2) of the Act. At the same time, the Commission feels that, Indian Railways may consider review of the existing rules of refund of fare and make the same more consumer friendly so that the passengers are not inconvenienced due to deficiency in services on its part, including delays on account of running the trains.

Tags : DOMINANCE   PROVISION   CONTRAVENTION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved