Elderly couple wins 3-year-long refund battle against Indian Railways after being forced to miss train due to overcrowding

On 13 April 2022, Purna Ramakrishna and his wife Hymavathi reached Krishnarajapuram (KJM) station in Bengaluru to board the Guwahati Express. The couple, both senior citizens from Hoodi, had valid sleeper class tickets worth ₹892.5 for a journey to Vijayawada.

But they never boarded.

Their reserved S2 coach was packed. So was the rest of the train. With no railway staff in sight and the train halting only for two minutes at 11.53 p.m., they made a difficult decision — to return home.

They had already spent ₹165 on an auto to the station. But what came next was far costlier.

No help, no refund, no explanation

Despite multiple representations, follow-up emails and messages, Indian Railways neither issued a refund nor offered any explanation. The couple waited. They reached out again. Still nothing.

With no proper response, they filed a complaint with the Bengaluru Urban II additional district consumer commission, citing service lapses. The railways, however, failed to file a reply within the 45-day window. Their version wasn’t recorded.

The forum initially dismissed the complaint on 1 July 2023. But the couple didn't give up. They escalated the matter to the state commission, which then set aside the earlier dismissal and asked the district forum to readmit the case.

Losses beyond one missed journey

The impact of that missed train went further. The couple’s onward journey was cancelled. Only one of their e-tickets for the Kondaveedu Express was confirmed. This forced them to cancel both tickets and bear the cancellation charges.

They had also booked return tickets for 21 April, which had to be scrapped altogether. The domino effect was clear — their travel plans collapsed due to no fault of their own.

In their complaint, they said they informed the railways after the train had left, expecting a Ticket Deposit Receipt (TDR) to be filed on their behalf. But this, too, was not done.

Railways call it “a personal decision”

In its written response, the South Western Railway said the couple’s claim of overcrowding was “false and baseless.” They stated that 134 passengers boarded the train at KJM that night and there were no complaints — “except from the elderly couple.”

Railway officials said the train was fully reserved and that unreserved travel had resumed across the division after COVID-19 restrictions were lifted.

The response added that “no issue was reported to the station master or RPF on duty,” and that “no crowding was flagged by staff on board.” Railways argued the couple’s choice not to board was “a personal decision” and not the result of any service lapse.

Citing refund rules, they said that confirmed tickets were non-refundable unless cancelled or supported by a TDR filed at least four hours before departure.

But a letter from Indian Railways told another story

A key piece of evidence swung the case.

A railway letter dated 6 May 2022, issued shortly after the incident, acknowledged a “spike in ticketless travel” and recommended “issuing unreserved tickets to curb revenue loss.” This, the forum said, lent credibility to the couple’s complaint.

The panel ruled that “internal records can't override on-ground realities,” especially when passengers are unable to board during a brief halt at midnight with no staff support.

Compensation ordered for financial and mental distress

In March this year, the commission ruled in favour of the couple. It directed Indian Railways to refund the ₹892.5 fare and pay an additional ₹5,000 for deficiency in service and mental distress. Litigation costs of ₹3,000 were also awarded.

The judgment underlined the duty of service providers to offer not just access, but support — especially when things go wrong.

This case sets a precedent.

If reserved coaches are overcrowded and inaccessible, passengers have the right to demand accountability. As this couple’s case shows, persistence pays off — but it also exposes gaps in the system.

Railways’ defence leaned on technicalities. But the commission focused on lived experience.

And that makes the difference.