cases:anand-verma-v-irctc-ncdrc-2024
no way to compare when less than two revisions
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| — | cases:anand-verma-v-irctc-ncdrc-2024 [2026/04/23 01:47] (current) – created - external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | {{htmlmetatags> | ||
| + | metatag-description=(TDR auto-rejection without verification is arbitrary.) | ||
| + | metatag-title=(IRCTC v. Anand Verma — 2024 — RTI case law)}} | ||
| + | ====== IRCTC v. Anand Verma ====== | ||
| + | |||
| + | **IRCTC v. Anand Verma** (National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, 2024-05-22) // | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Holding ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | TDR auto-rejection without verification is arbitrary. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Ratio ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Auto-rejection of a Ticket Deposit Receipt (TDR) by IRCTC without independent verification of the cited ground (e.g., 'did not board' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Section(s) applied ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Section Consumer Protection Act | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Practitioner takeaway ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Consumer Forum jurisdiction over IRCTC service deficiency; refund + compensation. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Citation ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * **Citation: | ||
| + | * **Court:** National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission | ||
| + | * **Date:** 2024-05-22 | ||
| + | * **Outcome: | ||
| + | * **Reporter / Cause-list: | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Related ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [[: | ||
| + | * [[: | ||
| + | * [[: | ||
| + | * [[: | ||
| + | * [[: | ||
| + | * [[:act|RTI Act, 2005 — full text]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | //Last reviewed: 23 April 2026.// {{tag> | ||
Was this helpful?
— views
Thanks for the signal.
cases/anand-verma-v-irctc-ncdrc-2024.txt · Last modified: by 127.0.0.1
