CLEAR TRIP & ANR. V/S ANIL KUMAR JINDAL. - Consumer Court Case

Haryana

Panchkula

CC/188/2017

ANIL KUMAR JINDAL. - Complainant(s)

Versus

CLEAR TRIP & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

24 Apr 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA.

Consumer Complaint No	:	188 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	30.8.2017
Date of Decision	:	24.4.2018

Anil Kumar Jindal S/o Sh. Diwan Chand Jindal aged about 60 yrs. R/o House No.820, Sector 2, Panchkula, Haryana. ….Complainant

Versus

Cleartrip having its office at Unit No.1, Ground Floor, DTC Building, N M Joshi Marg, Delisle Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013, through its Authorized person.

China Southern Airlines, 12^th Floor, Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001.

….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before: Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mr.Jagmohan Singh, Member.

For the Parties: Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate for complainant.

Mr. Arjun Kundra, Advocate for OP No.1.

OP No.2 already ex-parte vide order dated 24.11.2017.

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

1. This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by Anil Kumar Jindal, complainant against Cleartrip and another, the opposite parties.

2. It is stated in the complaint that complainant booked international air tickets for New Delhi to Guangzhou, along with return tickets of ‘China Southern Airlines (OP No.2) for 31.10.2016 on 14.9.2016 from the online portal operated by OP No.1 vide trip ID No.16091430398 for himself and his wife for a sum of Rs. 55,226/- made by the complainant online through his HDFC credit card No.5522605000237861 to OP No.1 on 14.9.2016, which was inclusive of Rs. 30,000/- (base fare), Rs. 26,626 (Tax) and Rs. 1,400/- (Discount & Cash backs). The due payment of credit card was cleared by the complainant through his saving bank account No.00611000080910 maintained with HDFC Bank, Sector 11, Panchkula. But the mother of the complainant namely suffered from ailment of the heart so admitted in Fortis Hospital, Mohali and complainant along with his wife was unable to board the flight for which tickets were booked. So complainant requested the OP No.1 to get tickets cancelled and thereafter refund the amount of the tickets paid by the complainant. OP No.1 cancelled the tickets and sent an email dated 30.10.2016 confirming the cancellation and initiation of refund to the complainant, which takes 96 hours to process the refund. Vide email dated 31.10.2016, the OP No.1 told the complainant that complainant was entitled to refund of “zero” and complainant got shocked. Complainant through emails requested to the OPs No.1 and 2 for his genuine claim for refund. OP No.2 through email dated 3.11.2016 informed the complainant that OP No1. Could confirm about the status of refund, but OP No.1 only offered to refund Rs.3754/- vide email dated 4.11.2016. But complainant requested to refund the whole amount of Rs. 55226/-. Even the complainant repeatedly pointed out the OPs about implementation of policy of Government of India. But no response. Hence, this complaint.

3. Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has suppressed material facts from the Forum; the complainant has not been come to the Forum with clean hands. It is stated by the OP No.1 that OP NO.1 is an online travel company and provided intermediary facilities of booking air tickets and hotel reservations in India and abroad through its website th September 2016, the complainant did an online round trip flight booking through the booking platform for the travel of 2 passengers namely Mr. Anil Kumar Jindal and Mrs. Manju Bala Jindal to travel from New Delhi to China and return. At the time of booking, the fare details and the flight booking policy pertaining to rules for check in, amendment, cancellation and refunds of OP No.2 (China Southern Airlines) was clearly displayed by the OP NO.1 on the booking platform. The fair details and fare rules had classified the booking to be ‘Non-refundable’ booking. Post acceptance of the booking terms by the complainant and on receipt of payment of Rs. 55,226/- the booking was successful and an e-ticket generated bearing trip id 16091430398 was sent to the email id of the complainant i.e.

4. Notice was issued to the OP No. 2 through registered post and the same has not been received back. None has appeared on behalf of the OP No. 2 and he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 24.11.2017.

5. The complainant placed on record the affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexures C-1 to C-10 and thereafter closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP No.1 has placed on record the affidavit as Annexure R-1/A along with documents Annexures R-1/1 to R-1/4 and has closed the evidence.

6. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the record carefully and minutely and also considered the written arguments submitted by OP No.1.

7. It is an undisputed fact that the complainant booked two air tickets for himself and his wife Mrs. Manju Bala Jindal, on 14.9.2016 for 31.10.2016 from New Delhi to Guangzhou along with return tickets of the above said persons from Guangzhou to New Delhi for 5.11.2016 from the online portal operated by the OP No.1 (“CLEARTRIP”) vide Trip ID No.16091430398 and paid Rs. 55,226/- which was inclusive of Rs. 30,000/- (Base fare), Rs. 26,626 (Tax) and Rs.1,400/- (Discount and cash backs). The above said payment was made by the complainant online through his HDFC Credit Card to the OP No.1 on 14.9.2016. However, the mother of the complainant namely Smt. Krishna Devi suffered from ailment of the heart and admitted in Fortis Hospital, Mohali. Due to that reason, the complainant was not able to board the flight. The discharged summary of Smt. Krishna Devi is placed on file as Annexure C-5. The complainant approached the OP No.1 to get the above said tickets cancelled and requested to refund the amount of tickets paid by the complainant. OP No.1 cancelled the tickets and sent the email dated 30.10.2016 (Annexure C-6) confirming the cancellation and informed the complainant that it will take 96 hours to process the refund. However, the OP No.1 vide email dated 31.10.2016 (Annexure C-7) informed the complainant that he was entitled for refund of “0”. The complainant raised the objection and sent email dated 31.10.2016 and 3.11.2016 (Annexures C-8 and C-9). Therefore, the OP No.2 informed the complainant vide email dated 3.11.2016 that the above said tickets were booked through OP No.1 and the only OP No.1 could confirm about the status of refund. Whereas OP No.1 offered to refund Rs.3754/- vide email dated 4.11.2016, which was refused to accept by the complainant being a meager amount. In view of the Circular No. 23-16/2016-AED dated 12.7.2016 effective from 1.8.2016 issued by Government of India DGCA (Annexure C-10) to OPs have to refund all statutory taxes and User Development Fee (UDF)/ Airport Development Fee (ADF)/Passenger Service Fee (PSF) to the complainant for cancellation/non utilization of tickets/no show. The Clause 3(d) of the above said circular is reproduced as under:-

“The airlines shall refund all statutory taxes and User Development Fee (UDF)/Airport Development Fee (ADF)/Passenger Service Fee (PSF) to the passengers in case of cancellation/non-utilisation of tickets/no show. This provision shall also be applicable for all types of fares offered including promos/special fares and where the basic fare is non-refundable.”

According to the above said, the complainant is entitled to refund of Rs. 25,226/- and not the amount of ‘0” or Rs.3574 offered by the OPs.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP No.1 submitted that in view of Clause 3 (c) of the above said policy it shall be the responsibility of the Airline to process the refund within the period of 30 working days, the above said Clause [3(C)] of the policy is reproduced as under:-

“In case of purchase of ticket through travel agent/portal, onus of refund shall lie with the airlines as agents are their appointed representatives. The airlines shall ensure that the refund process is completed within 30 working days.”

9. Moreover, the OP No. 2 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed ex-parte, which draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the OP No. 2 shows that he has nothing to say in their defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

10. In view of the above there was no reason as to why the amount of Rs. 25,226/- was not refunded as per the policy issued by the Government of India (Annexure C-10) by the OP No.2, obviously the OP NO.2 has no regard for the claim made by the complainant. It could not give any explanation for this deficiency in service. It could not explain as to why amount was not refunded. This shows that OP No.2 was bent upon causing inconvenience to the complainant. It is clear case of harassment on the part of OP NO.2 against a customer, who did not commit any mistake. At the cost of repetition, it may be stated that there was no defence of the OP No.2 justifying its conduct in non-refunding of the amount as per policy issued by the Government of India. This case represents the height of dis-service on the part of the OP No.2 toward its customers. It constitutes not only grave deficiency in service, but also utter arrogance and high handedness. Such conduct has to be curbed at the earliest. They might be under an impression that they are not answerable nor they need be transparent in the deal.

11. Considering the conduct of the OP No.2, we direct the OP No.2 to refund amount of Rs. 25,226/- to the complainant along with 9% interest from the date of cancellation of tickets till realization. The OP No.2 is also directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/-as compensation for harassment, negligence, mental agony. The OP No.2 is further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/-as compensation for cost of litigation. The complaint qua OP No.1 stand dismissed.