I think real justice would include an absolutely enormous fine to the company for tying up 20 years of court resources over a case they were clearly wrong about.

The plaintiff may not have incurred any legal costs, but the railway certainly cost the court a lot of money over the years.

If you prove it takes 20 years to successfully sue you, you can get away with just about anything.

It’s a public company. They don’t give a shit about wasting money.

I know nothing about the Indian legal system other than it draws a lot from the British one, but generally in cases like this the seemingly obtuse behavior is to prevent a precedential decision that others might refer to.

If they are suddenly on hook for refunds in a way they weren't before, there's a loss of potential future revenue and the additional cost of refund issuance bureaucracy. In a country the size of india even a 0.1% overcharge rate could add up to significant money. I can see why they would want to limit customers to disputing prices at the time of ticket issue.

It's not hard to find examples of private companies litigating over matters that seem superficially petty.

> I know nothing about the Indian legal system

It’s a joke. Always has been, from the colonial times.

Indian Railways probably have inhouse counsels who get paid the same salary irrespective of the no. of cases handled.

Makes perfect sense if you have any experience with Indian Railways or bureaucracy. It's even worse than American bureaucracy.

Not that bonkers really. I think the manager or responsible party is legally required to exhaust all options before refunding. It’s not about the money but about covering his bases.

If their lawyer is an employee of them, no extra cost.