Complaint No: 04 of 2020.
Date of Institution: 03.01.2020.
Date of order: 01.04.2024.
1. Jagjit Singh Son of Darshan Singh
2. Jatinder Singh Son of Darshan Singh
both residents of Village Pindi Saidan, P.O. Kalanaur, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. Pin Code – 143512.
….......Complainants.
VERSUS
1. BMVS Infoline India Service, Opposite Allahabad Bank, Near Easy Day, Jail Road, Gurdaspur, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, through its owner Mandeep Singh. Pin Code – 143521.
….Opposite party.
2. Ranjodh Singh Son of Late Prem Singh, resident of Village Dula Nangal, P.O. Bangowani, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. Pin Code – 143519.
….Performa opposite party.
Complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act.
Present: For the Complainants: Sh.G.S. Sohal, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party No.1: Sh.B.S. Dhakala, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party No.2: Sh.B.S. Bangowani, Advocate.
Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.
ORDER
Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.
Jagjit Singh & Jatinder Singh, Complainants (here-in-after referred to as complainants) have filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against BMVS Infoline India Service Etc. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainants is that the OP No. 1 is running a Mobile Shop cum Computer Center at Jail Road, Gurdaspur. The OP No. 1 is administrator cum owner of above said shop and the OP No. 1 is also running a business of booking tickets of Airways etc. It is pleaded that in the month of February 2019, the complainants and OP No. 2 had approached the OP No. 1 for booking tickets from Amritsar (India) to Toronto (Canada) as they were professional Sikh Preachers (Ragi Singh) and they have to conduct Sikh preaching sessions at Canada for which they were invited by Gurudwara Guru Nanak Darbar through its Director Hardeep Singh Badwal at Qubec (Canada). Hence, they needed Air Tickets to travel to that place and approached the OP No. 1 for booking tickets for which the OP No. 1 took Rs.2,29,982/- on dated 28.02.2019. The consideration amount was deposited in the account of the OP No. 1 at ICICI Bank at Branch Kalanaur. The booking ID of the OP No. 1 was 7667746618. It is further pleaded that the OP No. 1 assured the complainants and the OP No. 2 that he has booked the tickets with best available Airlines and the complainants and the OP No. 2 will not suffer any problem during or after journey, but to the utter surprise of complainants and the OP No. 2, the Airline i.e. Jet Airways cancelled their specific flights on which they were supposed to board on dated 14.04.2019. They have suffered undue harassment and agony due to above said cause and have also suffered financial and economic loss as they have missed their preaching sessions in Canada. It is further pleaded that after a few days of above said incident, the complainants and the OP No. 2 were informed by the specific Airlines telephonically that whole of the ticket booking money has been refunded to the account of the travel agent on which they approached the OP No. 1 for getting their money refunded, but the OP No. 1 did not agree to return the refunded amount of Rs.2,29,982/- at that time, but on repeated request of the complainants, the OP No.1 promised to repay the entire refunded money to the complainants within a month on which the complainants agreed, but till today the OP No. 1 has not refunded or repaid the amount of the complainants. It is further pleaded that the OP No. 1 has intentionally and willingly cheated the complainants due to which they have suffered financial loss and mental agony and it was the bounden duty of the OP No. 1 to repay the entire amount to the complainants, but the OP No. 1 have failed to do so. Earlier the complainants have issued a Legal Notice to the OP No.1 regarding the matter stated above, but no reply has been filed by the latter till date. It is further pleaded that it is the case of clear cut deficiency and negligence in service on the part of the OP No. 1 who included such heavy amount of bill upon the complainants without any genuine cause or action and it amount to unfair trade practice on their part and the OP No. 2 has also been impleaded in the present case as his interest is involved. Due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainants have suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. So, there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainants have alleged deficiency and negligence in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite party No.1 to refund the amount of Rs.2,29,982/- to the complainants and opposite party No. 2. The complainants may also be awarded with adequate compensation for the mental agony and physical torture caused by the opposite parties upon him alongwith litigation charges, in the interest of justice.
3. Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not legally maintainable against the answering opposite party No. 1 and the complainants have unnecessarily filed complaint against the answering opposite party No. 1. In fact the complainants never remained as consumer of the answering opposite party nor did the answering opposite party remain as agent of the Jet Airways Airline. Thus, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed against the answering opposite party. It is pleaded that the complainants have failed to set out any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the answering opposite party. The answering opposite party besides running an Airtel Store, Western Union and Money Gram office at Jail road, Gurdaspur and he has an internet-cafe and working as facilitator of his customer on any internet work. The answering opposite party was neither involved in the business of Airways tickets booking nor did he act as an agent in tickets booking of Airways etc. The answering opposite party has given facility of booking online Air ticket to the complainants on their request and charged only Rs.500/-. The ticket of Jet Airways was directly booked by the answering opposite party as facilitator of the complainants from the site of Jet-Airways and whole amount was paid / deposited by the complainants in the account of company. It is further pleaded that the answering opposite party is responsible if he has prepared a forged ticket or if he commit any type of fraud with the complainant. The ticket was directly issued to the complainant by the company through their mail. The tickets were issued by the company in the month of February 2019 and ceased operation of running flights from April 2019. As per latest news, the bankruptcy proceeding of the Jet Airways are going on. The answering opposite party has not received a signal penny from the company as alleged by the complainants in their complaint, moreover if the company will start to refund the amount of ticket to their customers, even then the answering opposite party has no role in payment of amount of ticket and the company will directly make payments to the account of their customers. The answering opposite party has charged only facility charges of Rs.500/- from the complainants and he is not liable to pay the ticket amount which has been charged by the company. Thus, this complaint is liable to be dismissed against the answering opposite party. It is further pleaded that the Jet-Airways through its Proprietor / Managing Director is necessary party, so the present complaint of the complainants is bad for non-joinder of the necessary party and the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act are not applicable in the present case and the complainants cannot be said to be a 'Consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further pleaded that the complainants have not come to this Ld. Court with clean hands and have suppressed true and material facts from this Hon'ble Court, as such they are not entitled to any relief as claim by them on the base of their falsehood from this Ld. Court and no cause of action accrued to the complainants against the answering opposite party No. 1, at any stage. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed and the present complaint has been filed with the sole objective to harass and to defame the answering opposite party No. 1.
On merits, the opposite party No.1has reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Upon notice, the opposite party No.2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply, stating therein that the complainants and the answering opposite party No.2 have approached the OP No.1 for booking tickets from Amritsar to Toronto (Canada) as they are Sikh Preachers (Ragi Singh) and they were to conduct Sikh Preaching at Canada for which they were invited by Gurudwara Guru Nanak Darbar through its Director Sh. Hardeep Singh Badwal and the OP No. 1 took Rs.2,29,982/- on dated 28.02.2019. It is further pleaded that the concerned Airline Authorities have told that they have refunded the entire amount of tickets in the account of Travel agent i.e. the OP No.1, but the OP No. 1 is not repaid the same to the complainants and answering opposite party No. 2. It is further pleaded that it is the case of clear cut deficiency and negligence in service on the part of the opposite party No. 1.
5. Learned counsel for the complainants has placed on file affidavit of Jagjit Singh, (Complainant No. 1) alongwith other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 alongwith complaint.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 has placed on file affidavit of Mandeep Singh S/o Sh. Balbir Singh, (Owner / Proprietor of opposite party No.1) as Ex.OP-1/A alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-1/B to Ex.OP-1/D alongwith reply.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has placed on file affidavit of Ranjodh Singh S/o Late Prem Singh as Ex.OPW-2/A alongwith reply.
8. Rejoinder not filed by the complainants.
9. Written arguments not filed by both the parties.
10. Counsel for the complainant has argued that opposite party No.1 is running a mobile shop cum computer centre at Jail Road, Gurdaspur and in February 2019 complainants and opposite party No.2 approached opposite party No.1 for booking tickets from Amritsar (India) to Torono (Canada) for giving sikh preaching at Canada. It is further argued that opposite party No.1 took Rs.2,29,982/- from the complainants and amount was deposited in the account of opposite party No.1 at ICICI Bank Branch Kalanaur. It is further argued that opposite party No.1 assured the complainants that tickets have been booked with available Airlines and complainants shall not suffer any problem but the Jet Airways cancelled their specific flights which were scheduled to fly on 14.04.2019. It is further argued that the concerned airlines had telephonically intimated the complainants that amount has been refunded to the travel agent and thereafter complainants and opposite party No.2 approached the opposite party No.1 for refund but opposite party No.1 has refused to refund the amount which amounts to deficiency in service.
11. On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.1 has argued that opposite party No.1 is not agent of Jet Airways rather opposite party No.1 is running Airtel Store, Western Union and Money Gram office at Jail Road, Gurdaspur with internet café and working as facilitator for its customer for any internet work. It is further argued that opposite party No.1 has charged only Rs.500/- as fee. Moreover, Jet Airways has not been impleaded as a party in the present complaint. It is further argued that complainants have alleged to have transferred the amount in the account of the opposite party No.1 with ICICI Bank but opposite party No.1 has no account with ICICI Bank as claimed by the complainants.
12. Counsel for the opposite party No.2 has argued that opposite party No.1 approached the opposite party No.1 for booking of tickets from Amritsar to Toronto as they were invited by the Gurudwara Guru Nanak Darbar through its Director Sh.Hardeep Singh Badwal as they are Sikh Preachers and opposite party No.1 had not refunded the amount of Rs.2,29,982/- which were received by opposite party No.1 on 28.02.2019.
13. We have heard the Ld. counsels for the parties and gone through the record.
14. To prove their case complainant No.1 has placed on record his duly sworn affidavit, copy of airline ticket Ex.C1, copy of invitation form Gurudwara Guru Nanak Darbar Ex.C2, copy of legal notice Ex.C3, postal receipt Ex.C4 whereas opposite party No.1 has placed on record affidavit of Mandeep Singh Ex.OP-1/A, copy of certificate Ex.OP-1/B, copy of Sub Agent Agreement Ex.OP-1/C and copy of appointment letter Ex.OP-1/D. Opposite party No.2 has placed on record his duly sworn affidavit Ex.OPW-2/A.
15. Perusal of file shows that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the allegations that opposite party No.1 is agent of Jet Airways and amount for purchasing the tickets was transferred in the account of opposite party No.1 maintained with ICICI Bank. Perusal of file shows that complainant has not placed on record any detail of transfer of amount in the account of opposite party No.1 and moreover, perusal of ticket Ex.C1 shows that amount of Rs.2,29,982/- has been charged by Jet Airways for three passenger. Counsel for the complainant has further alleged that the amount has been refunded by the Jet Airways to the opposite party No.1 but complainant has not placed on record any statement of account regarding transfer of amount by Jet Airways in the account of opposite party No.1. Counsel for the complainant had never explained why Jet Airways was not impleaded as party to the complaint as Jet Airways was only person who could had explained whether the amount has been refunded or not. On the other hand the plea of the opposite party No.1 is that opposite party No.1 is only running internet café and had charged only Rs.500/- for procuring online tickets for the complainants and opposite party No.1 has placed on record his certificate Ex.OP-1/B alongwith Ex.OP-1/c and Ex.OP-1/D which shows that opposite party No.1 is running the facilitation center providing internet services to its customers and since there is no record on file that opposite party No.1 is agent authorized by the Jet Airways to book tickets on its behalf and moreover the refund of the amount in the account of opposite party No.1 is also not proved. As such complaint completely failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1.
16. Accordingly, present complaint being without merits is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs. However, it made clear that complainants and opposite party No.2 are at liberty to approach Jet Airways Authority or if Jet Airways is closed then any other liquidator appointed by the competent authority in solvency proceedings.
17. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
18. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.
(Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President.
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
April 01, 2024 Member.
*YP*
