Present :      Sri. C.T. Sabu, President

                                                Smt. Sreeja. S., Member

                                                Sri. Ram Mohan R., Member

31^st day of August 2022

CC 557/19 filed on 10/10/19

Complainants        :   1)  Muhammad Yousuf,

                                       S/o Mathilakathuveettil Muhammad,

                                      Nedumbura Desom, Kattoor Village,

                                      Mukundapuram Taluk.

                                 2)  Shajitha, W/o Mathilakathuveettil Muhammad

                                      Yousuf, Nedumbura Desom, Kattoor Village,

                                      Mukundapuram Taluk.

                                      (By Advs. Biji R & A.S. Santhoshkumar, Thrissur)

Opposite Parties    :    1) Cleartrip Customer Care, M.G. Road,

                                      Kochi, Ernakulam.

                                  2) Cleartrip Private Ltd., 06 Godrej Business,

                                      Pirojshanagar.

                                  3) Cleartrip Pvt. Ltd., 1^st Floor, Suraj Ganga Soft Park,

                                      Potential House, 3^rd Floor, JP Nagar, Banguluru,

                                      Karnataka – 500 78.

                                      (Ex-parte)

O R D E R

By Sri. Ram Mohan R, Member :

1. Complaint in brief, as averred :

          The complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.   The 1^st complainant who works abroad statedly visits his home land occasionally. The 2^nd complainant is the wife of the 1^st complainant. The 1^st complainant planned to pay a trip to Ajmer with his wife (2^nd complainant  herein) and their son. Accordingly, the 1^st complainant effected online booking of necessary flight tickets with the opposite parties that are travel agencies facilitating reservation of flight tickets. Jaipur being the Airport close to Ajmer, onward ticket from Kochi to Jaipur was booked for 09/08/19 and the return one for 12/08/2019. The total amount paid towards the up and down flight charges was Rs.42,750/-. But owing to the flood that inundated various parts of the state of Kerala in August 2018, the Cochin Airport was closed on the scheduled day of travel and hence the complainants could not accomplish the travel they planned. On communicating the matter with the opposite parties they refunded to the complainant the air fare from Cochin to Jaipur, ie Rs.27,192/- only. Despite repeated requests made by the complainant, the opposite parties refused to refund the air fare in respect of the return travel, ie from Jaipur to Cochin which amounts to Rs.15,558/-. Hence the complaint. The complainant alleges unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and pray for an order directing the opposite parties to refund the balance amount of Rs.15,558/- apart from other reliefs of compensation and costs.

2) NOTICE :

          Having been noticed by the Commission, the opposite parties represented, but failed to file their version before the Commission. Resultantly, proceedings against the opposite parties were set ex-parte.

          3) Evidence :

          The complainants provided documental evidence that had been marked Exts. A1 to A6, apart from affidavit and notes of arguments. The proceedings against the opposite parties being ex-parte, no evidence produced on their part.

          4) Deliberation of evidence and facts :

          Ext. A1 is copy of Flight ticket in question. Ext. A2 is copy of print out of email communication regarding cancellation of tickets. Ext. A3 is print out of the message communicating the refund of Rs.27,192/- to the 1^st complainant. Ext. A4 is print out of complainant’s request for refund. Ext. A5 & A6 are print out of the opposite parties’ email communication with the 1^st complainant.

          5) Points of deliberation :

          (i)      Maintainability ?

                   If point No.(i) is proved in favour of the complainant :

          (ii)     Whether the complaint’s claim is legitimate and whether the act of

                   the opposite parties is tantamount to unfair trade practice or

                   whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the

                   opposite parties ?                    

          (iii)    Whether the complainant is entitled to any compensation

                   from the opposite parties ? If so its quantum ?

          (iv)    Costs ?

          6) Point No.(i) :

           Admittedly, the 1^st complainant is working abroad and he occasionally,  visits his home land. It is also admitted that it is the 1^st complainant who effected the online booking of the flight tickets in question. The complainant failed to state, either by affidavit or otherwise, whether the said online booking has been effected at a place within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. Despite repeated directions from the Commission, the complainant declined to unequivocally clarify this point regarding the specific place where the online booking in question was effected by the 1^st complainant. Though having availed several chances (30/05/22, 03/06/22, 29/07/22 & 01/08/22), specifically for the said purpose, the complainant desisted from affirming the place where the online booking of ticket was effected from. The opposite parties, in the instant case, are addressed at places out of the local limits of the jurisdiction of this Commission and consequently the Commission derives territorial jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act 1986, only if the cause of action wholly or in part arises within the local limits of the Commission’s jurisdiction. The gist of the order dtd.07/02/17 of the Hon’ble National Commission in Spice Jet Limited Vs RanjuAery,   endorses this legal position.  

          As the complainants have miserably failed to unequivocally express the specific place  where online booking in question was effected, we are not in a position to affirm our jurisdiction and are constrained to take adverse inference against the complainants, in the wake of their having repeatedly abstained from divulging the place where the online booking was effected, despite availing several chances for that purpose.

          Hence we hold that the case is not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction. Hence point No.(i) is proved against the complainants. Needless to mention, the other points warrant no consideration of the commission. The complainants are at liberty to agitate the appropriate forum towards redressal of their grievance.

          In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 31^st day of August 2022.

   Sd/-                                                Sd/-                                     Sd/-         

Sreeja S.                                    Ram Mohan R                        C. T. Sabu

Member                                           Member                                              President

                                                    Appendix

Complainants’ Exhibits :

Ext. A1 copy of Flight ticket in question.

Ext. A2 copy of print out of email communication regarding cancellation of

              tickets.

Ext. A3 print out of the message communicating the refund of Rs.27,192/- to

              the 1^st complainant.

Ext. A4 print out of complainant’s request for refund.

Ext. A5 & A6 are print out of the opposite parties email communication with

             the 1^st complainant.

                                                                                                    Id/-

                                                                                                Member

Present :      Sri. C.T. Sabu, President

                                                Smt. Sreeja. S., Member

                                                Sri. Ram Mohan R., Member

31^st day of August 2022

CC 557/19 filed on 10/10/19

Complainants        :   1)  Muhammad Yousuf,

                                       S/o Mathilakathuveettil Muhammad,

                                      Nedumbura Desom, Kattoor Village,

                                      Mukundapuram Taluk.

                                 2)  Shajitha, W/o Mathilakathuveettil Muhammad

                                      Yousuf, Nedumbura Desom, Kattoor Village,

                                      Mukundapuram Taluk.

                                      (By Advs. Biji R & A.S. Santhoshkumar, Thrissur)

Opposite Parties    :    1) Cleartrip Customer Care, M.G. Road,

                                      Kochi, Ernakulam.

                                  2) Cleartrip Private Ltd., 06 Godrej Business,

                                      Pirojshanagar.

                                  3) Cleartrip Pvt. Ltd., 1^st Floor, Suraj Ganga Soft Park,

                                      Potential House, 3^rd Floor, JP Nagar, Banguluru,

                                      Karnataka – 500 78.

                                      (Ex-parte)

O R D E R

By Sri. Ram Mohan R, Member :

1. Complaint in brief, as averred :

          The complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.   The 1^st complainant who works abroad statedly visits his home land occasionally. The 2^nd complainant is the wife of the 1^st complainant. The 1^st complainant planned to pay a trip to Ajmer with his wife (2^nd complainant  herein) and their son. Accordingly, the 1^st complainant effected online booking of necessary flight tickets with the opposite parties that are travel agencies facilitating reservation of flight tickets. Jaipur being the Airport close to Ajmer, onward ticket from Kochi to Jaipur was booked for 09/08/19 and the return one for 12/08/2019. The total amount paid towards the up and down flight charges was Rs.42,750/-. But owing to the flood that inundated various parts of the state of Kerala in August 2018, the Cochin Airport was closed on the scheduled day of travel and hence the complainants could not accomplish the travel they planned. On communicating the matter with the opposite parties they refunded to the complainant the air fare from Cochin to Jaipur, ie Rs.27,192/- only. Despite repeated requests made by the complainant, the opposite parties refused to refund the air fare in respect of the return travel, ie from Jaipur to Cochin which amounts to Rs.15,558/-. Hence the complaint. The complainant alleges unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and pray for an order directing the opposite parties to refund the balance amount of Rs.15,558/- apart from other reliefs of compensation and costs.

2) NOTICE :

          Having been noticed by the Commission, the opposite parties represented, but failed to file their version before the Commission. Resultantly, proceedings against the opposite parties were set ex-parte.

          3) Evidence :

          The complainants provided documental evidence that had been marked Exts. A1 to A6, apart from affidavit and notes of arguments. The proceedings against the opposite parties being ex-parte, no evidence produced on their part.

          4) Deliberation of evidence and facts :

          Ext. A1 is copy of Flight ticket in question. Ext. A2 is copy of print out of email communication regarding cancellation of tickets. Ext. A3 is print out of the message communicating the refund of Rs.27,192/- to the 1^st complainant. Ext. A4 is print out of complainant’s request for refund. Ext. A5 & A6 are print out of the opposite parties’ email communication with the 1^st complainant.

          5) Points of deliberation :

          (i)      Maintainability ?

                   If point No.(i) is proved in favour of the complainant :

          (ii)     Whether the complaint’s claim is legitimate and whether the act of

                   the opposite parties is tantamount to unfair trade practice or

                   whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the

                   opposite parties ?                    

          (iii)    Whether the complainant is entitled to any compensation

                   from the opposite parties ? If so its quantum ?

          (iv)    Costs ?

          6) Point No.(i) :

           Admittedly, the 1^st complainant is working abroad and he occasionally,  visits his home land. It is also admitted that it is the 1^st complainant who effected the online booking of the flight tickets in question. The complainant failed to state, either by affidavit or otherwise, whether the said online booking has been effected at a place within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. Despite repeated directions from the Commission, the complainant declined to unequivocally clarify this point regarding the specific place where the online booking in question was effected by the 1^st complainant. Though having availed several chances (30/05/22, 03/06/22, 29/07/22 & 01/08/22), specifically for the said purpose, the complainant desisted from affirming the place where the online booking of ticket was effected from. The opposite parties, in the instant case, are addressed at places out of the local limits of the jurisdiction of this Commission and consequently the Commission derives territorial jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act 1986, only if the cause of action wholly or in part arises within the local limits of the Commission’s jurisdiction. The gist of the order dtd.07/02/17 of the Hon’ble National Commission in Spice Jet Limited Vs RanjuAery,   endorses this legal position.  

          As the complainants have miserably failed to unequivocally express the specific place  where online booking in question was effected, we are not in a position to affirm our jurisdiction and are constrained to take adverse inference against the complainants, in the wake of their having repeatedly abstained from divulging the place where the online booking was effected, despite availing several chances for that purpose.

          Hence we hold that the case is not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction. Hence point No.(i) is proved against the complainants. Needless to mention, the other points warrant no consideration of the commission. The complainants are at liberty to agitate the appropriate forum towards redressal of their grievance.

          In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 31^st day of August 2022.

   Sd/-                                                Sd/-                                     Sd/-         

Sreeja S.                                    Ram Mohan R                        C. T. Sabu

Member                                           Member                                              President

                                                    Appendix

Complainants’ Exhibits :

Ext. A1 copy of Flight ticket in question.

Ext. A2 copy of print out of email communication regarding cancellation of

              tickets.

Ext. A3 print out of the message communicating the refund of Rs.27,192/- to

              the 1^st complainant.

Ext. A4 print out of complainant’s request for refund.

Ext. A5 & A6 are print out of the opposite parties email communication with

             the 1^st complainant.

                                                                                                    Id/-

                                                                                                Member