CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110016
Case No.427/2010
PALLAV SHISHODIA
S/O. LATE D.S. SHISHODIA
R/O. A-102, DEFENCE COLONY,
NEW DELHI-110024. …..COMPLAINANT
Vs.
M/S.AIRWORTH TRAVEL & TOURS PVT. LTD.
506, MANISHA BUILDING,
75-76, NEHRU PLACE,
NEW DELHI-110019. …..OPPOSITE PARTY
Date of Institution-27.07.2010
Date of Order- 01.03.2024
O R D E R
MONIKA SRIVASTAVA-President
Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking refund of Rs.15,080/- along with interest @18% from 23.06.2010 till the date of payment, Rs.30,000/- towards expenses for making alternative travel arrangements. Complainant also seeks Rs.50,000/- as damages for mental agony and Rs.15,000/- as cost of litigation.
- It is a case of the complainant that he paid a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- towards air and train tickets, travel policy hotel reservation and visa fee and also included fully paid train ticket for overnight journey on 23.06.2010 of the complainant and his wife from Venice (Italy) to Paris (France).
- The OP provided Euro Rail tickets for travel dated 23.06.2010. However, the printed train ticket was misplaced by the complainant which the complainant informed the OP on 22.06.200 with a request to issue duplicate ticket by email so that this e-ticket could be used at the time of travel.
- It is further stated that the said train ARN220 was cancelled due to French railway strike and the information officer at Venice made an endorsement on the invoice presented by the complainant that the train ARN220 had been cancelled due to a French railway strike and that the passengers had reported. The information officer advised the complainant to get in touch with his agent for refund through proper procedure and an official communication of cancellation of the train was also handed over to the complainant.
- It is stated that the complainant on 23.06.2010 informed the OP about the course of events and was told by the executives of the OP that the refund would be processed soon. It is further stated by the complainant that because of the cancellation of the train journey, the complainant and his wife spent an extra night at the hotel at Venice at 150 Euros and also had to incur 350 Euros for air ticket and miscellaneous expenses.
- It is further stated by the complainant that on his return to India the complainant requested the OP for refund of Rs.15,080/-. However, OP’s attitude was unreceptive contrary to their earlier assertions. In this regard the complainant sent a letter dated 28.06.2010 but did not get a positive response from the OP. It is the case of the complainant that he was entitled to a refund, in view of the fact that the train was cancelled due to French Strike and the ticket remaining unutilized.
- It is stated that OP has wrongfully retained the amount of refund in collusion with their “Vendor” and has been deficient in their services in not processing the refund of Rs.15,080/-. It is stated by the complainant that he has suffered financial loss, undergone mental agony and trauma caused by disruption of travel plans, negligence and high handedness of the OP.
- In their reply, OP has stated that refund of Euro rail ticket had to be refunded as per Euro Rail Rules and as per the Euro Rail Rules, no refund can be given unless and until ticket in original is presented. It is stated that OP cancelled the Euro rail, however, as per their rules refund could not be made unless and until hard copy of the Euro rail ticket is presented in original. It is stated that OP contacted Amigo Travels who is an authorized GSA for Euro Rail in India but was declined for refund after informing them of the policy.
- It is further stated by the OP that the complainant was made aware of the policy of the Euro Rail before issuing the pass. It is further stated that as per the Euro Rails policy even if the ticket is unutilized, utilized or partially utilized no refund is possible unless and until the ticket is presented in original. It is stated that though the OP had sent an email of the Euro ticket however, a duplicate or photocopy does not permit travelling as per the rules of the Euro Rail.
- It is further stated by the OP that the information provided by the executives of the OP was on the assumption that the complainant had the original ticket in his possession. It is further stated that the agents did not give any assurance to the complainant regarding the refund. It is stated that the agent of the OP tried to pacify the complainant as he was in a difficulty in a foreign country at that time. It is further stated that OP cannot be held responsible for an unforeseen event. It is further denied by the OP that they adopted any hostile or unreceptive attitude towards the complainant.
- OP has further stated that he is tried his level best to get the refund and the correspondence between the OP, Euro Rails and Amigo Travels witness their genuine efforts to assist the complainant.
- In his rejoinder, the complainant has stated that there is no provision in the Euro Rails Rules about non-issuance of duplicate ticket in case original tickets are lost or misplaced and that the rules are neither statutory in nature nor form a contract between the complainant and the OP who were obliged to arrange duplicate tickets but instead the OP gave false assurance to the complainant to “pacify the complainant”.
- It is further stated that the ticket is not a currency note which until and unless and original, no record of its usage etc. can be traced. It is further stated that there was an endorsement made on the ticket that due to French Railway Strike, the train was cancelled and the passengers had reported which shows that the ticket remains unutilized.
- It is reiterated by the complainant that the OP did not assist him in get a refund and therefore, the OP has been deficient in its services.
- Both the complainant and the OP have filed their respective evidence affidavits as well as written arguments. This Commission has gone through the entire material on record. Complainant has placed on record the invoice dated 11.06.2010 which witnesses payment of Rs.15,080/- being made to the OP for travel and Euro rail and on which it is endorsed ‘ARN220 cancelled due to French Railway Strike’ and that ‘the passengers reported’.
- OP, on the other hand has placed on record the refund policy of the Euro Rail wherein it is clearly stated “No refund can be made unless and until the pass or ticket can be produced (lost or stolen train tickets or rail passes cannot be refunded).”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of SGS India Limited vs Dolphin International AIR 2021 SC 4849 has held the following
“The onus of proof that there was deficiency in service is on the complainant. If the complainant is able to discharge its initial onus, the burden would then shift to the Respondent in the complaint.”
It is therefore, upon the complainant to initially discharge its onus to prove that there was deficiency in service on the part of OP. This Commission has gone through the pleadings and documents filed by the complainant and find that complainant has not been able to discharge this onus. Therefore, the present complaint is dismissed being devoid of any merits.
