Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/504/2016

Rajiv Goel - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cleartrip Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In person

15 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/504/2016
Date of Institution	:	11/07/2016
Date of Decision	:	15/12/2016

 

Rajiv Goel s/o Sh. Dharam Pal Goel, resident of House No.326, Sector 6, Panchkula.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Cleartrip Pvt. Ltd., Unit No.001, Ground Floor, DTC Building, Delisle Road, N.M. Joshi Road, Lower Marg (E), Mumbai 400011 through its G.M.

2.     Air India through its Manager, SCO 162-164, Ground Floor, Dakshin Marg, Sector 34A, Chandigarh 160022.

……Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

               

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person
	:	Sh. Harsh Nagra, Proxy Counsel for Sh. Harish Bansal, Counsel for OP-1.
	:	Sh. S.R. Chaudhuri, Counsel for OP-2

                       

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.         The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he booked 3 adults and 1 infant Air India Flight AI 471 tickets from New Delhi to Udaipur for 10.6.2016 from Cleartrip.  When the complainant and his family reached Udaipur airport, they were shocked to hear that due to negligence of certain persons of Air India, baggage of many people was left at Delhi and the same could be delivered on the next day only. The matter was reported to the concerned officials of the Air India. Due to such negligence, the complainant was forced to buy few essential things costing Rs.5,600/-. The complainant received his baggage on 11.6.2016 under protest. He contacted OP-2 telephonically a number of times as well as through emails and also sent a legal notice dated 16.6.2016, but to no avail. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.   
2.         OP-1 in its written reply has contended that the allegation of the complainant revolves only with respect to the alleged inconvenience caused to him due to non-delivery of his baggage by OP-2.  The complainant has not raised any grievance or allegation of deficiency against OP-1. OP-2 is the airline who is the actual service provider; OP-1 is merely an intermediary and cannot be held responsible for any act or omission by OP-2.  It is stated that OP-1 had no role in the operation and management of the airline and the issue concerning loss of baggage is the sole responsibility of OP-2. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         OP-2 in its separate written reply has taken the plea that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction as the cause of action arose either at New Delhi or Udaipur.  It has been admitted that the baggage of the complainant was left behind for which he made a property irregularity report at Udaipur and the same was delivered on 11.6.2016 intact, without any complaints. It is contended that under the Citizens Charter vide Annexure R-1/A, the complainant would have been entitled to Rs.2,000/- as interim relief.  The remaining averments have been denied being wrong.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-2 also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
5.         We have gone through the record, including the written arguments of OP-2, and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties.
6.         The case of the complainant is that he booked 3 adult and 1 infant Air India flight tickets from New Delhi to Udaipur through online process. The sole grouse of the complainant is that his baggage containing certain essential articles, clothes and important infant articles including baby food, could not be handed over back to him on the same day; rather the same was delivered to him on the next day and the complainant was forced to purchase the same items again due to the negligence on the part of the OPs.
7.         The stand taken by OP-1 is that the complainant had to face inconvenience due to the non-delivery of his baggage by OP-2 and being an intermediary, it was only to provide the online booking, hence it cannot be held liable for any kind of deficiency. 
8.         On the other hand, OP-2 has taken the plea that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction and it has also been contended that under the citizen’s charter (Annexure R-1/A), if the complaint is allowed, the complainant would be entitled to Rs.2,000/- as interim relief.
9.         It is evident that as per the admission on the part of OP-1, the present booking was made online, and since OP-2 is also having branch office at Chandigarh, therefore, a part of cause of action arose at Chandigarh. As such, this Forum has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.
10.         So far as the deficiency of OP-1 is concerned, it did not have any control over the operation and administration of the service of the airline.  It being an online travel intermediary, was only responsible for providing the booking of the flight tickets which the complainant admittedly travelled.  Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, OP-1 can be held liable for any deficiency in service.
11.         From a close perusal of the emails (Annexure A-5 and A-6) dated 10.6.2016 and 11.6.2016 respectively, it is evident that the complainant tried to communicate with OP-2 for redressal of his grievance which were never replied by OP-2.  It is also noteworthy that the legal notice dated 16.6.2016 was also not replied by it. It is clearly admitted by OP-2 vide Annexure R-1/A, which is a copy of the Citizen’s Charter, that the complainant is entitled to Rs.2,000/- as interim relief.   Hence, there was no reason for not responding to the emails and the legal notice of the complainant.  It is clearly the negligent and callous attitude of OP-2 that despite realising the fact of it being deficient in services, it did not redress the grievance of the complainant and forced him to get indulged into the present unnecessary litigation. 
12.         Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances narrated above, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to succeed. The same is accordingly partly allowed qua OP-2. OP-2 is directed as under:-

(i)     To pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant as interim relief as per the Citizens charter.

(ii)    To pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to him;

(iii)   To pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. 

13.         This order be complied with by OP-2 within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
14.         The complaint qua OP-1 stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
15.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

	Sd/-	Sd/-
15/12/2016	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member