Train tickets rescheduled after driving cannot be refunded

Train tickets changed after departure cannot be refunded

— Bao Mouning v. China Railway Group Co., Ltd. Railway Passenger Transportation Contract Case

(Source: Internet, removal of infringing content)

Basic Facts

Bao Mouning entrusted He to purchase a hard sleeper ticket from Nanning Station to Beijing West Station on April 26, 2024, at 15:38 via the “Railway 12306” app. Later, Bao Mouning, due to personal reasons, missed the train and notified He to change the ticket. On the day of departure, He submitted a change request through the “Railway 12306” app to rebook Bao Mouning’s ticket to train Z286 from Nanning East to Beijing West at 17:44 on April 29, 2024.

On the day of the change, Bao Mouning also authorized He to request a refund. At this time, the “Railway 12306” app displayed: “This ticket has been changed after departure and is not eligible for a refund.” Bao Mouning believed that “tickets changed after departure cannot be refunded” was an invalid standard clause. China Railway Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as China Railway) did not permit the refund, claiming there was no basis. Bao Mouning then sued China Railway to the Nanning Railway Transport Court, requesting a partial refund.

Case Focus

Is the clause “Tickets changed after departure cannot be refunded” invalid as a standard clause?

Judgment Summary

The Nanning Railway Transport Court held that Article 496, Paragraph 2 of the Civil Code states: “When a contract is established using standard terms, the party providing the standard terms shall follow the principle of fairness to determine the rights and obligations between the parties, and shall take reasonable measures to draw the other party’s attention to clauses that exempt or reduce liability and have significant interests, explaining these clauses upon the other party’s request. If the party providing the standard terms fails to fulfill the obligation to prompt or explain, causing the other party to overlook or misunderstand clauses with significant interests, the other party may claim that such clauses are not part of the contract.”

Article 497, Item (2) stipulates that if the party providing standard terms unreasonably exempts or reduces its liability, increases the other party’s liability, or restricts the main rights of the other party, such clauses are invalid; Item (3) states that if the party providing standard terms excludes the main rights of the other party, such clauses are invalid.

From a formal perspective, the China Railway 12306 official website, the “Railway 12306” app, and train station displays prominently publish the above change policy, and the change page on the “Railway 12306” app clearly indicates a “Refund and Change Policy” link in blue font. The “Refund and Change Policy” explicitly states: “Tickets changed after departure are not eligible for refunds.” China Railway has fulfilled its obligation to provide reasonable prompts and explanations.

Content-wise, this clause grants passengers the right to change to trains on the same day or later after departure, considering the railway’s operational capacity, but due to operational needs and maintaining normal ticketing order, it stipulates that tickets changed after departure are non-refundable. This clause does not inherently exempt China Railway from its obligation to provide change services, nor does it unreasonably increase passenger responsibilities or restrict their main rights, nor exclude their primary rights. The clause is legal and valid, and can be part of the railway passenger transportation contract involved.

Bao Mouning, due to personal reasons, did not take the train at the originally scheduled time, and after departure, chose to change the ticket. Without special reasons, then later requested a refund, which does not conform to the contractual agreement.

The Nanning Railway Transport Court rendered a final judgment: dismissing Bao Mouning’s claim.

Judge Liu Donghai, Nanning Railway Transport Court

Judicial Remarks

Standard clauses are pre-drafted provisions prepared by one party for repeated use, without negotiation with the other party at the time of contract formation. They are a product of social and economic development, widely applicable in industries such as water, electricity, heating, gas, postal services, telecommunications, insurance, railways, aviation, highways, and shipping, closely related to citizens’ daily lives. Whether such clauses are fair and valid is a key concern for all contracting parties.

Article 497 of the Civil Code stipulates that “if any of the following circumstances applies, the standard clause is invalid: (1) circumstances specified in Chapter 6, Section 3 of the first part of this Law and Article 506 of this Law; (2) the party providing the standard clause unreasonably exempts or reduces its liability, increases the other party’s liability, or restricts the main rights of the other party; (3) the party providing the standard clause excludes the main rights of the other party.”

In judicial practice, attention should be paid to the difference between this article and Article 496. First, this article regulates the validity of “unreasonable exemption or reduction of liability, increased liability, or restriction of main rights” clauses, while Article 496 concerns the scope of the obligation to prompt or explain all clauses with significant interests, such as exemption or liability reduction clauses. Second, their nature differs: this article evaluates the effectiveness of standard clauses, whereas Article 496 is about factual determination of contract content, within contract formation. Third, their effects differ: if the provider of the standard clause fails to fulfill the prompt or explanation obligation, causing the other party to overlook or misunderstand significant clauses, the clause can be deemed not part of the contract. If the provider has fulfilled the obligation but the clause falls under items (2) or (3), it is invalid.

In this case, Bao Mouning claims that “tickets changed after departure cannot be refunded” is a standard clause that unreasonably restricts main rights (including but not limited to: indirectly prohibiting other travel options, requiring travel, or restricting changes to travel time), and thus is invalid. Determining the validity of a standard clause requires a comprehensive assessment of its specific content and the circumstances under Article 497.

“Tickets changed after departure cannot be refunded” clearly involves significant interests for Bao Mouning. China Railway has the obligation to prompt and explain this clause. The policy has been published prominently on the official website, app, and station displays, with a clear link labeled “Refund and Change Policy” on the change page, explicitly stating that “tickets changed after departure are not eligible for refunds.” China Railway has fulfilled its duty to provide reasonable prompts and explanations.

After establishing that China Railway has fulfilled its prompt and explanation obligations, the next step is to assess whether the clause unreasonably exempts or reduces the provider’s liability, increases the other party’s liability, or restricts the main rights of the other party, to determine its effectiveness. The “Railway Passenger Transport Regulations” issued by China State Railway Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Transport Regulations,” effective from January 1, 2023) specify in Articles 45, 47-53 that passengers can apply for refunds, including procedures, timeframes, and fees. Besides refund rights, the regulations also provide for change options, allowing passengers to choose between refund or change when needed. Ticketing is a time-sensitive service, and only a healthy ticket market environment can meet the travel needs of consumers. The policy that tickets changed after departure are non-refundable aims to reduce frequent changes and malicious refunds, ensuring that more travelers can purchase tickets timely, maintaining fairness and order in ticketing. This clause does not unreasonably increase passenger responsibilities or restrict their main rights, nor does it exclude their primary rights.

The lawful judgment in this case helps maintain normal ticketing order and operational efficiency of railway transportation, protects the rights of other passengers, and guides travelers to understand relevant regulations in advance, plan trips reasonably, and avoid unnecessary losses. It also encourages consumers to strengthen awareness of their rights and risks, carefully read and understand standard clauses, and safeguard their legitimate rights according to law.

Author: Liu Donghai, Feng Lin, Nanning Railway Transport Court

Source: Nanning Railway Transport Court, Guangxi High Court

Editor: Shi Hui

【Source: Shandong High Court】