Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/370/2024

EASE MY TRIP - Complainant(s)

Versus

AMIT KUMAR SHARMA - Opp.Party(s)

MEENAKSHI DOGRA

19 Nov 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	:	370 of 2024
Date of Institution	:	18.10.2024
Date of Decision	:	19.11.2024

 

 

 

 

 

Ease My Trip, 223, F.I.E., Patparganj, Industrial Area, New Delhi 110092.

 ….Appellant/Opposite Party No.2.

Versus

1. Amit Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Surinder Kumar, Resident of H.No.284/2, Sector 44-A Chandigarh.

Also at: Chamber No.180 FF District court Complex Sector 43 Chandigarh.

2. Jagdeep Singh S/o Mukhtiar Singh, Village Ibrahimpura, SAS Nagar (Mohali) Punjab 140507.
3. Mahesh S/o Jai Pal Singh, # 2479 Sector 28-C, Chandigarh.
4. Swaranjeet Singh S/o Harbans Singh, 328, Chak Fateh Singhwala, Bhatinda Punjab 151101.
5. Tikaram Bhusal S/o Dharma Raj Bhusal, #243, Sector 16-A, Chandigarh 160015.

 ...Respondents/Complainants.

6. Indigo Airlines through its authorized representative, Office Address: Level-1, Tower C, Global Business Park, Mehrauli, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana.

Also at: Upper Ground Floor, Thapar House, Gate No.2, Western Wing, 124 Janpath, New Delhi – 110001.

…Respondent/Opposite Party No.1.

BEFORE:    JUSICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                   MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY :-    

Ms. Meenakshi Dogra, Advocate for the appellant.

PER  RAJESH  K. ARYA,  MEMBER

                    The instant appeal has been filed by opposite party No.2 – Ease My Trip (appellant herein) against order dated 02.05.2024  passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘District Commission), vide which, consumer complaint bearing No.639 of 2021 filed by the complainants (respondents herein) has been partly allowed against the appellant in the following manner:-

“4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OP-2 is directed as under :-

1. to pay interest @ 9% per annum to complainant No.1 on the already refunded amount w.e.f. 14.6.2020 to 8.10.2022.
2. to pay ₹10,000/- to complainant No.1 as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to complainant No.1 as costs of litigation.

5.  This order be complied with by OP-2 within forty five days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the payable amounts, mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.”

However, the consumer complaint was dismissed by the District Commission against Opposite Party No.1 – Indigo Airlines with no order as to costs. 

2]           The facts, in brief, were that on 25.1.2020, Complainant No.1 booked 10 round-trip flight tickets for himself and his associates from Delhi to Goa for travel on 11.4.2020, returning on 14.4.2020, through opposite party No.2’s website, with a total payment of ₹42,690. The booking was confirmed via email (Annexure C-2). However, on 2.2.2021, Complainant No.1 received an email from Indigo (OP-1) stating that all flights were suspended due to COVID-19 and suggesting that the bookings were cancelled but protected under a credit shell, valid for one year. Despite several attempts by the complainant to redeem the credit, including contacting the opposite parties through their website and helpline, no resolution was provided. It was stated that the failure to refund the amount or honor the credit shell constituted a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the opposite parties.

3]                Opposite Party No.1 – Indigo Airlies contested the complaint by filing its reply wherein it was stated that the complainants booked their flights through opposite party No.2 and due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the flights were canceled. It was further stated that on 1.4.2020, their booking amount was held as a credit shell. When the complainants contacted the customer relations team in June 2020, the full refund of ₹40,440/- was processed by the opposite party No.1 on 14.6.2020. The complainants’ grievance was that they have not received the refund but this amount was transferred to the third-party agent, Easy Trip Planner (opposite party No.2). It was further stated that as the refund was already processed and remained with opposite party No.2, opposite party No.1 was not liable to pay any further amount.

4]                Opposite Party No.2 – Ease my trip also contested the complaint by filing its reply wherein it was stated that it was only a facilitator to provide the services as service provider and the consumer complaint was not maintainable against it. It was further stated that it was intermediary covered under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000. It was admitted that opposite party No.2 received refund request from the complainant on its self-serving portal on 6.11.2021 (Annexure 2) and subsequently on 11.11.2021 (Annexure 3), refund was processed in the EMT wallet.  It was further stated that opposite party No.2 has refunded the whole amount without making any deduction.  

5]                After hearing the parties and going through the material available on record, the District Commission partly allowed the complaint in the manner, as stated above.

6]                To assail the order of the District Commission, it has been stated by the appellant that during Covid-19, the appellant was getting the amount of refunds from airlines in bulk due to the cancellation of many flights and the appellant with the minimum staff tried to resolve each and every query raised by its customers at that time. It has further been stated that the flights were cancelled on 02.04.2020 and refund was processed by respondent No.6 in relation to the present booking on 14.06.2020. It has further been stated that on 23.01.2021, respondent No.1/complainant contacted the appellant for refund against cancelled flight and in response, the appellant informed that they have received refund from respondent No.6/opposite party No.1, which could be claimed from appellant’s self-serving portal by placing cancellation request on it.  Thereafter, respondent No.1 did not approach the appellant for refund and rather filed consumer complaint. It has further been stated that after filing the said complaint, the appellant received refund request from respondent No.1 on its portal on 06.11.2021 and subsequently on 11.11.2021, the refund of Rs.37,550/- was processed by the appellant in EMT wallet of respondent No.1. It has further been stated that on receipt of court notice, on 10.08.2022, the appellant despite not being at fault as a goodwill gesture refunded the cancellation service fees of Rs.3,000/- and convenience fee of Rs.2,250/- also in the said Wallet and accordingly, the entire amount of Rs.42,490/- was refunded by the appellant. It has further been stated that it was only due to refund policy of the appellant that the amount was not refunded, which was only refundable through online portal and that too after getting cancellation request/claim from the customer/travel agent/corporate company. It has further been stated that respondent No.1 had secured the booking in form of credit shell valid for one year from the date of issuance and that could be used to make future bookings from customer’s portal of airline and hence, the appellant could not do anything as respondent No.1 secured his credit shell. It has further been stated that respondent No.1 not having used their credit shell asked for refund, which was accordingly made. Lastly prayer for setting aside of the impugned order has been made.

7]                It may be stated here that there is a delay of 68 days as per the appellant & 74 days as per office report in filing the present appeal, for condonation whereof Miscellaneous Application No.958 of 2024 has been filed alongwith the appeal. After going through the contents of the application, which is supported by an affidavit and in view of law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Pundlik Jalam Patil Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448 and Basawaraj and Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, the appellant has shown rational reason for the delay, which has been caused due to bonafide reasons. Therefore, for the reasons given in the application which is supported by an affidavit and finding sufficient cause, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. MA/958/2024 stands disposed of accordingly.

8]                After hearing the rival contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant and going through the impugned order and material available on record, we are of the considered view, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. While the appellant claims that it was processing refunds in bulk due to the pandemic, it is important to note that refund was already processed by respondent No.6/opposite party No.1 in relation to the booking on 14.06.2020. Respondent No.1/complainant was entitled to a full refund for the canceled flight and the appellant was under an obligation to ensure that respondent No.1/complainant received the refund promptly after the cancellation immediately in June 2020. He was not expected to chase the appellant through a self-service portal to claim a refund for a canceled flight. The delay in processing the refund, particularly the appellant’s failure to proactively issue the refund after receiving it from the airline in June 2020, constituted a deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.

9]                The appellant has also invoked the issue of the credit shell, claiming that respondent No.1/complainant had secured a credit shell valid for one year, which could be used for future bookings. However, the appellant’s defense regarding the credit shell is misplaced. The credit shell was meant to be used in case respondent No.1/complainant chose not to seek a refund. It does not justify the appellant’s failure to promptly refund the complainant’s money after the flight cancellation. Respondent No.1/complainant was entitled to refund and upon cancellation of the tickets, amount thereof was received by the appellant, it (appellant) had the responsibility to process that refund without unnecessary delays.

10]              The appellant insisted that the refund could only be processed via the self-service portal. While the appellant may have had a policy requiring customers to claim their refunds through the portal, this requirement does not absolve the appellant from its responsibility to ensure the complainant’s refund was processed promptly, especially after receiving the refund from the airline. The appellant failed to actively follow up and provide clear assistance to the complainant. The burden of navigating the refund process should not fall entirely on the complainant, particularly in a situation where the airline had already refunded the money to the appellant. 

11]              The appellant claimed to have refunded the cancellation service fees and convenience fees in August 2022 as a goodwill gesture. However, the refund of ₹37,550/- was already due and the complainants should not have had to wait for further action once they contacted the customer relation in June 2020. The fact that the appellant eventually refunded additional amounts only after legal proceedings were initiated indicates a reactive approach rather than a proactive resolution of the complainant’s grievance. This does not mitigate the appellant’s initial failure to refund the amount in a timely manner. The delay in processing the refund is a clear case of deficiency in service. Respondent No.1/complainant was entitled to a refund for the canceled flight immediately the appellant received the money from respondent No.6/opposite party No.1 but the appellant failed in its duty to ensure that respondent No.1/complainant received the refund in a timely manner. The complainant’s failure to immediately use the self-service portal is not a valid excuse for the appellant’s delay in processing the refund. The appellant’s reliance on the credit shell policy also does not absolve it of the responsibility to issue a refund for a canceled flight. Thus, the appellant did not take any immediate action to transfer the funds to the complainant and the money was only transferred to an EMT wallet after an unjustifiable delay of over two years. This prolonged delay was not only unreasonable but also reflected a lack of urgency and transparency on the part of the appellant in handling the matter. Had the appellant acted diligently, the refund should have been processed promptly upon receiving the amount from opposite party No.1. Instead, the appellant’s inaction and prolonged retention of the funds caused unnecessary hardship and inconvenience to respondent No.1/complainant, further violating their fiduciary duties. Thus, we do not find any infirmity or material irregularity in the impugned order passed by the District Commission, which is legal, just and fair.

12]              For the reasons recorded above, the appeal being devoid of any merit stand dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs.

13]              Pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed having rendered infructuous.

14]              Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

15]              File be consigned to the Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

19.11.2024.

(JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(RAJESH  K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Ad