DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 29^th day of November, 2024

                                                                   Filed on: 27/01/2022

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                          President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                              Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                             Member

C.C. NO. 69/2022

COMPLAINANT

Joseph Rish Simenthy, Mallamayil, Moon Wale, Kadukutty P.O., Chalakkudy, Thrissur 680309.

Vs.

OPPOSITE PARTY

1. Aby George,
2. P.G. Prageesh, Air India Express, Air India Express Building, Gandhi Square, Darbar Hall Road, Opp. DH Ground, Kochi 682016.

(Rep. by Adv. Joson Malavalan, M/s. Menon & Pai, I.S. Press Road, Ernakulam, Kochi 682018)

F I N A L    O R D E R

Sreevidhia T.N., Member:

1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complainant had lost his job in Singapore in the month of October, 2021 and hence decided to return to India along with his family. The complainant had booked tickets for himself, his wife and his son on 3^rd November, 2021 for the journey on 19^th November, from Singapore to Thiruchirappilly on Air India Express. The complainant had also booked tickets to travel from Thiruchirappilly to Kochi through Indigo Airlines. The complainant had booked the tickets on 3^rd November, 2021. Later the complainant came to know that the booking for direct flight to Kozhikode was opened at the website. Hence the complainant had booked 3 tickets for the journey to Kozhikode through direct flight. The complainant was in a strong belief that they can reach home without changing the flight. Then the complainant had cancelled the earlier tickets booked by the complainant from Singapore to Thiruchirappilly and from Thiruchirappilly to Kochi. The complainant states that he is entitled for full refund of the ticket since the cancellation is effected within 24 hrs. The complainant has not received the full refund amount for the 3 tickets for the journey from Singapore to Thiruchirappilly but the Indigo has refunded the amount to the complainant. The complainant had tried to contact the customer care of the opposite party. The customer care executive of the opposite party informed to the complainant that the complainant is not entitled for full refund since he had booked the Vande Bharat Mission Flight and hence no refund. The complainant states that there is no mention in the flight ticket or the terms and conditions of the flight ticket that no refund for Vande Bharat Mission Flight. The customer care executive told to the complainant that the condition regarding the refund of the ticket is mentioned in the website. The complainant has not received the refund of the 3 tickets. Hence the complainant approached the Commission seeking orders directing the opposite party to

1. refund Rs.58,042/- to the complainant
2. it should be clearly written on the ticket that it is a Vande Bharat Flight and the terms and conditions should state that the ticket amount is non-refundable.  

 2) NOTICE

The notice was issued to the opposite party from this Commission and 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties appeared on 31/05/2022 and versioned filed by the opposite parties on 15/06/2022 (Notice sent to 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties seen served on 18/03/2022) and version filed after 3 months from the date of service of notice. Hence the version filed by the opposite parties can’t accept on the files. 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are set as ex-parte.

3) Evidence

The complainant did not submit a proof affidavit but provided four supporting documents.

4) The issues came up for consideration in this case are as follows.

1. Whether any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is proved from the side of the opposite party towards the complainant?
2. If so, reliefs and costs?

The issued mentioned above are considered together and answered as follows:

The complainant did not submit a proof affidavit before the Commission to support his case. Despite being given several chances, the complainant consistently neglected to substantiate his claims. Additionally, the complainant failed to present his evidence and was notably absent on the initial dates of the case, demonstrating a pattern of non-attendance. Consequently, the Commission directed the Registry to inform the complainant on 07/09/2023 to appear before the Commission and submit evidence. The Registrar contacted the complainant by phone on 23/09/2023 regarding the required appearance and further steps. However, due to the complainant’s ongoing absence and failure to provide evidence, the Commission must proceed with opportunities to comply, the complainant has neither submitted the necessary evidence nor shown interest in pursuing the case. The instant case is filed as per Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, As per Section38 (6) every complainant shall be heard by the District Commission with the basis of an affidavit and documentary evidence placed on record.

In catena of decisions, it has been established that the burden of proof lies with complainant to demonstrate negligence or deficiency in service by presenting evidence before the Commission. Mere allegations of negligence are insufficient to support the complainant’s case. Consequently, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the opposite party.

SGS India Ltd. Vs. Dolphin International Ltd. 2021 AIR SC 4849 In this case, it was held that:

“The onus of proof of deficiency in service is upon the complainant in complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service. In a judgment of this Court reported as Ravneet Singh Bagga Vs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr., this Court held that the burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it.”

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the Commission finds that the complainant failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate their claims of deficiency in service or negligence by the opposite parties. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed, and no relief is granted to the complainant. We have decided not in favour of the complainant on all the issues mentioned above. After careful consideration, we found that the case presented by the complaint is meritless. As a result, the following orders have been issued.

ORDER

Based on the aforementioned circumstances, the Commission has determined that the contentions raised by the complainant lack merit. As a result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost.

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 29^th day of November, 2024.

Sd/-

Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

Sd/-

D.B.Binu, President

V.Ramachandran, Member

Forwarded/By Order

Assistant Registrar

Despatch date:

By hand:     By post                                                  

kp/

CC No. 69/2022

Order Date: 29/11/2024