Presented by:
Minakshi Chakraborty, Presiding Member.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
This case has been filed by the complainant under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the OPs, alleging deficiency in service by the OP due to non-refund of the amount by the OPs.
The facts, as stated in the complaint and emerged from the documents attached with it, are that the Complainant booked both ways air tickets of the INDIGO (OP2) through OP1, one is from Kolkata to Chandigarh vide PNR /Booking reference – SIHE7Z, date of booking 06.02.2020, date of departure 30.03.2020 for seven persons of which the total fair was amounting to Rs. 32116/- only and another ticket from Amritsar to Kolkata vide PNR /Booking reference – ODER7L, date of booking 06.02.2020, date of departure 07.04.2020 for seven persons of which the total fair was amounting to Rs. 30331/- only and the complainant paid the amount of Rs. 62447/- to OP1 by cash for booking of those tickets along with separate commission charges.
Due to COVID-19 pandemic atmosphere both the aforesaid scheduled flights were cancelled and the full amount of booking was refunded by the Indigo in the account of OP1. As per submission of the complainant, soon after cancellation of those tickets, the complainant contacted OP1 for refund of money but OP1 replied that he did not receive any refund from the Indigo against cancellation of those tickets and he promised that as soon as he gets the said refund from OP2, he would refund the same to the complainant. It is further submitted from the complainant that since then on several times the complainant requested the OP1 to refund the said money but all are in vain.
In view of the aforesaid finding no other alternative, complainant sent one email to customer relation (OP2) for refund of the said cancelled tickets and OP2 confirmed that they have refunded an amount of INR 25620/- to the virtual Id of the travel agency and INR 500 to the card no. ending with 4625 under ARN no. 74332740314031314476681. OP2 also confirmed that they refunded an amount of INR 27979/- to the virtual Id of the travel agency and INR 500 to the original mode of payment under order no. 872c4f53219d20200209041011 under PNR SIHE7Z.
After being informed about said refund against his said email, complainant sent a legal notice through his Ld. Advocate vide letter dated 27.03.2021 requesting the OP1 to refund aforesaid money at the earliest. Despite of receiving such notice OP1 did not pay any heed to that. Lastly having no refund returned to him the complainant compelled to move before the commission by filing the instant case with a prayer directing the O.p. no.1 to pay the due balance amount of Rs.62,447/- and compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,00,000/- with other reliefs.
DEFENCE CASE:
The OP2 enters appearance by filing written version denying inter alia all material allegations levelled against them. As per submission of the OP2, they refunded the booking amount after necessary adjustment in due time against cancellation of said two Indigo flight tickets to the account of OP1 and it is also in their submission that they confirmed the same by replying to the email of the complainant. OP2 further submits that the grievance of the complainant is actually against OP1 with respect to refund of the said booking amount. OP2 also stated that Inter Globe Aviation Ltd. has already processed the refund of the entire booking amount to the account from which the payment was received, and that account was of a third party namely Bonvoyage on 07.02.2020 and on 08.11.2020 adjusted booking amount was refunded. It is in the submission of OP2 that no transaction took place between the Inter Globe Aviation Ltd. and OP1 directly. All other denials made by the OP2 are evasive in nature. The OP2 prays for dismissal of this complaint case against them by submitting that OP1 is the only answering OP used the account of said third party at the time of booking those tickets and OP1 must know about such return of the said refund.
Evidence on record
The complainant and O.p. no.2 have filed evidence on affidavit alongwith some documents which are nothing but replica of complaint petition and written version filed by them respectively.
As the O.p. no.1 has not appeared, the case is running ex-parte against him.
Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyers of the parties
Complainant and O.p. no.2 have filed their separates written notes of argument.
In spite of filing B.N.A. O.p. no.2 did not take part in argument. However, heard argument of complainant at length. In course of argument Ld. Lawyer of complainant has given emphasis on evidence and documents produced by the parties.
From the discussion hereinabove, we find the following issues/points for consideration.
Issues/points for consideration
- Whether the complainant is the consumer?
- Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the case?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Issue no.1:
The pertinent question herein lies whether the petitioner is a consumer?
In the light of the discussion hereinabove and from the materials on record, it transpires that the complainant is a Consumer as provided by the spirit of Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The point is thus answered in the affirmative.
Issue no.2:
Both the complainants and the O.p. no.1 are residents within the district of Howrah and the claims do not exceed the pecuniary limit of this commission. This point is thus disposed of accordingly.
Issue nos. 3 & 4:
Before discussion the issue nos.3 & 4 let it be made clear that the case is running ex-parte against O.p. no.1 vide order no.7 dated 02/03/2022. Both the issues are taken up simultaneously for the sake of convenience.
It is the case of the complainant/petitioner that he booked both ways air tickets of INDIGO (OP2) through OP1 on 06.02.2020 being one of Kolkata to Chandigarh vide PNR /Booking reference – SIHE7Z having date of departure 30.03.2020 for seven persons by Rs. 32116/- and another ticket of Amritsar to Kolkata vide PNR/Booking reference – ODER7L having date of departure 07.04.2020 for seven persons of by Rs. 30331/- and thus he paid Rs. 62447/- to OP1 by cash.
The specific case of the complainant is that due to COVID-19 pandemic atmosphere both the aforesaid scheduled flights were cancelled and the full amount of booking was expected to be refunded by the Indigo to him while the same has been refunded in the account of OP1. It is his case that soon after cancellation of those tickets, he contacted OP1 for refund of money when OP1 assured time and again him immediately on receiving the refund from the Indigo qua OP2 against cancellation of those tickets he would refund the same to him.
It is in his case that finding no other alternative, he sent one email to customer relation (OP2) for refund of the said cancelled tickets who confirmed that they refunded Rs.25,620/- (INR) to the virtual Id of the travel agency and Rs. 500 (INR) to the card no. ending with 4625 under ARN no. 74332740314031314476681. He also came to know that OP2 further confirmed that they refunded Rs.27,979/- (INR) to the virtual Id of the travel agency and Rs. 500 (INR) to the original mode of payment under order no. 872c4f53219d20200209041011 under PNR SIHE7Z. After being informed about said refund he sent a legal notice through his Ld. Advocate vide letter dated 27.03.2021 for refund of said money and OP1 did not pay any heed to that effect rather OP1remained silent which gives rise to the instant proceeding for the reliefs mentioned in the petition itself.
The OP1 did not turn up even on receiving the summons in due time and therefore instant proceeding has been finally reached ex-parte against the OP1 while OP2 entered appearance by filing vakalatnama and also filed W.V. on 03/06/2024 and contested the proceeding.
In order to substantiate the claim in respect of refund of said money against cancellation of those two flight tickets of Indigo, the complainant filed (i) copy of said email received from Indigo (OP2) regarding return of said refund, (ii) copy of said letter of his Ld. Advocate dated 27.03.2021 together with copy of receipt of said letter regarding service upon OP1 and (iii) all the relevant documents in xerox regarding booking of said two tickets with cancellation thereof together the respective identities of the said 07 passengers.
Whereas in order to substantiate the case of OP2, OP2 made out that Inter Globe Aviation Ltd. processed the refund of the entire booking amount to the account from which the payment was received, and that account was of a third party namely Bonvoyage on 07.02.2020 and on 08.11.2020 adjusted booking amount was refunded. It is in the case of OP2 that though no transaction took place between the Inter Globe Aviation Ltd. and OP1 directly even then OP1 could say what has happened about the said refund in as much as OP1 only accessed the said third party account at the time of booking said two tickets of the complainant. It is the OP2’s case that the complaint case may be dismissed against them on the ground that they refunded the said money to the specific account from which they received the booking amount and OP1 is the only answering OP who used and accessed the account of said third party Bonvoyage at the time of booking those tickets and OP1 must know about such return of the said refund.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances on minutely scanning and evaluation of the documents on record and on thorough scrutiny of the written version of both sides in the light of the citations as placed before the commission during argument, the commission comes to the finding that the complainant has been succeeded to prove his case on the strength of the case of the OP2 as advanced before the commission. However, commission also comes to the finding that OP2 has also been succeeded to establish their case against the OP1 only and to exonerate them from the case for having no deficiency of service.
From the facts stated above and taking into consideration all the documents produced by the complainant this commission holds the OP1 to be negligent in proving service and there is gross deficiency of service on the part of the OP1.
These two issues are thus disposed of.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the Complaint case no.134 of 2021 be and the same is decreed on contest in favour of the complainant against O.p. no.2 (with no order as to cost) and is decreed ex-parte against O.p. no.1 along with cost.
The complainant do get Rs.53,599/- (Rs.25,620/- + Rs.27,979/-) along with 9% interest from date of initiation of this instant case till realization from O.p. no.1 within 45 days from date:
The complainant do further get Rs.30,000/- for harassment and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost from the OP1 within 45 days from date.
In case OP1 fail to comply the order passed by this commission complainant is at liberty to take recourse to law after completion of the due date of 45 days from date.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will be available in the following website The word file is drafted and corrected by me.
(Minakshi Chakraborty)
Memer
D.C.D.R.C., Howrah
