DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 24th day of January 2023
Filed on: 09/10/2018
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C. No. 419/2018
COMPLAINANT
Pradeep Kumar P.R., S/o.Rajappan Nair, Gangothri, LBS Road, Edappally, Ernakulam, Pin-682 024
(Party-in-person)
Vs.
OPPOSITE PARTY
M/s.Cleartrip, Cleartrip Head Office, Unit No.1, Ground Floor, DTC Building, N M Joshi Marg. Delisle Road, Lower Parel (E), Mumbai-400 013
(o.p rep. by Adv.Ajay N S., Fathima Plaza, Providence Road, Ernakulam)
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B.Binu, President.
1) A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under Section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant and one Binu G. had booked flight tickets for to and fro journeys between Kochi and Bangalore for his family member on 08.10.2016 and 11.10.2016 through the opposite party's portal (www.clammytop.com.) The delayed intimation of cancelling the return flight resulted in unexpected expenses like hiring vehicles, lodging and food expenses. Above all the opposite party denied the refund of flight charges paid for the return journey after giving assurance. The Complainant had paid Rs.12,916/- for the Ticket for multi-city flight trip ID-1605195195502 and Binu G paid Rs.19,285/- for flight trip ID-16051952084. The complainant requested a refund of the unavailed part of the journey and sent an email dated 28.10.2016 to the opposite party and M/s. Air Pegasus intimating the problems caused by the complainant due to the cancellation of the flight. The opposite party had given an assurance of refund of the amount through mail dated 02.11.2016. The opposite party was evading the responsibility of refunding the amount collected and denied service stating unjustifiable reasons. “Multi-city returns flight ticket” was a single service/product assured by the opposite party for an easy, trouble-free, discounted journey. But by cancelling one side of the journey, the opposite party had failed to meet the service guaranteed to the customer and abandoned the complainant's family members to hardships which include 80-year-old to small kids. The opposite party has given notice through email dated 02.04.2017 for a refund.
The complainant had approached the commission seeking an order directing the opposite party to refund Rs.16,000/-, Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony, financial loss, and hardships suffered by the complainant due to the unexpected expenses incurred like hiring vehicles, lodging, and food expenses and the cost of the proceedings.
2) Notice
The Commission’s notice sent to the opposite party was returned with the postal endorsement “Left”. Hence, the Commission issued another notice to the opposite party through e-mail. Hence the notices will be considered as deemed to be served and the opposite party did not file their version. Hence The opposite party set ex-parte.
3). Evidence
The complainant had filed 4 documents that were marked as Exhibits-A-1- to A-4.
Exhibit A-1: True copy of the confirmation of ticket by email dated 27.05.2016.
Exhibit A-2: True copy of the email dated 28.10.2016 to the opposite party/Air Pegasus intimating cancellation.
Exhibit A-3: A true copy of the email dated 02.11.2016 from the opposite party confirming the refund is in due process.
Exhibit A-4: True copy of the email dated 02.04.2017 giving notice to the opposite party for a refund.
4) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
5) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
In the present case in hand, the complaint was filed under Section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant had booked flight tickets to and fro journeys between Kochi and Bangalore of his family members on 08.10.2016 and 11.10.2016, through the opposite party's portal as per (Exhibit A-1). The delayed intimation of cancelling the return flight resulted in unexpected expenses like hiring vehicles, lodging and food expenses. Above all the Opposite party denied the refund of flight charges paid for the return journey after giving assurance. The opposite party has given notice through email dated 02.04.2017 for a refund as per (Exhibit A-4). The aggrieved complainant is filing this complaint for appropriate relief.
As per Section 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. The complainant produced a true copy of the confirmation of the ticket by email dated 27.05.2016 (Exhibit A-1). Hence, the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (Point No. i) goes against the opposite party.
The opposite party denied the refund of flight charges paid for the return journey after giving assurance. The opposite party has given notice through email dated 02.04.2017 for a refund as per (Exhibit A-4). The complainant also produced the email dated 28.10.2016 (Exhibit A-2) intimating the cancellation of the flight. The complainant produced a copy of the email dated 02.11.2016 from the opposite party confirming the refund is in due process (Exhibit A-3). In the e-mail, the opposite party says:
“Thank you for writing to us regarding your refund query for Trip ID: 16051952084 and 16051955022. We understand your concern and apologize for any inconvenience that may have caused to you. We would like to inform you that our Refunds team is still working on your case and they are following up with the airline. Unfortunately, we have not received any update from the airline yet. We assure you of prompt action as soon as we receive a response from the airline.”
The complainant submitted that the opposite party was evading the responsibility of refunding the amount collected and denied service stating unjustifiable reasons. 'Multi-city return flight ticket’ was a single service/product assured by the opposite party for an easy, trouble-free, discounted journey. But by cancelling one side of the journey, the opposite party had failed to meet the service guaranteed to the customer and abandoned the complainant's family members to hardships which include 80-year-old to small kids.
We have also noticed that a Notice was issued from the Commission to the opposite party but did not file their version. Hence the opposite party set ex-parte. The complainant has filed 4 documents which are marked as Exbt.A-1 to A-4. All in support of his case. But the opposite party did not make any attempt to set aside the ex-prate order passed against it.
The opposite party’s conscious failure to file their written version in spite of their having received the Commission’s notice to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations leveled against them. The Hon’ble NC held a similar stance in its order cited 2017(4) CPR page 590 (NC).
The opposite Party has inadequately performed the service as contracted with the complainant and hence there is a deficiency in service, negligence, and failure on the part of the opposite Party in failing to provide the Complainant desired service which in turn has caused mental agony and hardship, and financial loss, to the Complainant.
We find the issue Nos. (ii), (iii) and (iv) are found in favour of the complainant for the serious deficiency in service that happened on the side of the opposite party. Naturally, the complainant had suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, hardships, financial loss, etc. due to the negligence on the part of the opposite party.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant.
Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:
The opposite party shall refund Rs.16,000/- to the complainant towards the unavailed portion of the amount paid by the complainant to the opposite party.
The opposite party shall pay the complainant Rs.10,000/- as compensation for loss caused to the complainants due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practices of the opposite party.
The Opposite Party shall also pay the complainant Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings.
The above-mentioned directions shall be complied with by the opposite party within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount ordered vide (i) and (ii) above shall attract interest @7.5% from the date of receipt of a copy of this order till the date of realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on 24th day of January 2023.
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/- V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
Exhibit A-1: True copy of the confirmation of ticket by email dated 27.05.2016.
Exhibit A-2: True copy of the email dated 28.10.2016 to the opposite party/Air Pegasus intimating cancellation.
Exhibit A-3: A true copy of the email dated 02.11.2016 from the opposite party confirming the refund is in due process.
Exhibit A-4: True copy of the email dated 02.04.2017 giving notice to the opposite party for a refund.
