Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/502/2020

Sh. Rohit Pandey - Complainant(s)

Versus

Co-Founder & CEO Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Pancham Sharma Adv

14 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/502/2020
Date of Institution	:	29/09/2020
Date of Decision	:	14/10/2024

 

Sh. Rohit Pandey s/o Sh. Bhuvan Chand Pandey r/o Pandey House #10, Ward No.2, Below Central State Library Solan, HP. PIN-173212.

                                ...  Complainant

V E R S U S

1.Co-Founder & CEO Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd., Gulf Adiba, 4^th Floor, Plot No.272, Phase II, Udyog Vihar, Sector 20, Gurugram, Haryana 122008.

2.Nodal Officer Customer Care Executive Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd., Gulf Adiba, 4^th Floor, Plot No.272, Phase II, Udyog Vihar, Sector 20, Gurugram, Haryana 122008.

 

…. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:
	SHRI AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU	PRESIDENT
	SHRI BRIJ MOHAN SHARMA	MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY:
	Sh. Pancham Sharma, Counsel for complainant
	Sh. G.K. Goyal, Adv. Proxy for Sh. Dixit Garg, Counsel for OPs

       

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

1.        The complainant has filed the present consumer complaint alleging that he had booked a Holiday package with the OPs for Bali (Indonesia) w.e.f. 29.4.2020 to 4.5.2020 which included flight tickets (to & fro), hotel accommodation, local conveyance etc. by paying total booking amount of ₹80,840/- i.e. ₹10,005/- on 23.2.2020 and ₹70,735/- on 25.2.2020.  However, on account of COVID-19 pandemic and consequent restrictions imposed by the Govt. of India, the said holiday plan could not be materialized.  Thereafter, the complainant made number of requests to the OPs to refund the booking amount but the OPs called upon the complainant to reschedule the holiday package, which was not acceptable to him. OPs averred that since the booking amount had been appropriated for the purchase of air tickets, as per policy of the Airline, same could not be refunded.  The complainant also served legal notice on the OPs but with no success. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint seeking refund of the amount paid alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses.
2.        In their written version OPs admitted that the complainant had booked the Holiday package and paid the booking amount and the same could not be materialized due to COVID-19 pandemic.  It is averred that the air tickets were booked in the Malaysia Airlines and the OPs assured the complainant that the amount paid by them towards booking would be refunded upon receipt of the same from the Airlines.  It is alleged that the OPs have no role in the operation of the Airlines and they only provide website to the customers to book tickets and the Airlines solely was responsible for the cancellation or refund of the tickets in case of cancellation of flights. The remaining allegations have been denied being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.
3.        The parties filed their respective affidavits and documents in support of their case.
4.        The complainant chose not to file replication.
5.        We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record, including written arguments.
6.        It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant had booked the holiday tour package from the OPs for Bali (Indonesia) w.e.f. 29.4.2020 to 4.5.2020 on payment of total booking amount of ₹80,840/-.
7.        Perusal of the record shows that as the OPs themselves have admitted that the amount in question had been received by them from the concerned Airlines, therefore, there is no need to go into the question if the OPs were liable to refund the said amount to the complainant or not. 
8.        It is observed from the record that the OPs in their written arguments have specifically admitted that the refund from the Airlines was received by them in March 2021 and thereafter they wrote emails to the complainant to share bank details in April and May 2021.  However, surprisingly no such emails have been placed on record by the OPs to corroborate their version for which adverse inference has to be drawn against them.
9.        Once it is the own admitted case of the OPs that they had received the refund from the concerned Airlines in March 2021, they should have immediately refunded the same to the complainant but they did not do so. Even if it is believed (without admitting it) that the complainant did not provide the account details to the OPs, still they could have sent the said amount through post by way of bank draft to the complainant’s residential address, which must be available with them, or at least could have submitted the same in this Commission during the pendency of the instant consumer complaint, but, they did nothing. The OPs cannot be allowed to reap benefits on the amount meant for the complainant for no fault on his part. 
10.        As a result, what clearly emerges is that the OPs have not refunded the amount actually meant for the complainant and have wrongly withheld the same since the last more than 3½ years for no rhyme or reason and the said act certainly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.   The OPs seek benefit of exemption under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 being intermediary between a customer and a service provider but OPs are not entitled to such exemption in the present case because OPs remained deficient in playing the role of intermediary as they have not forwarded the amount of refund received from the service provider Airlines to the complainant.  Thus, OPs remained not only deficient in rendering intermediary services but also negligent to do so. 
11.        In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed.  OPs are directed to refund the amount of ₹80,840/- to the complainant (after deduction of the amount already paid to the complainant, if any) alongwith interest @10% per annum from the date of institution of the present consumer complaint, till the date of its actual realization. The OP shall also pay lump sum compensation of ₹10,000/- to the complainant for the harassment caused to him.
12.        This order be complied with by the OPs within 60 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.
13.        The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
14.        Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

 

ANNOUNCED 14/10/2024 hg	[AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU] PRESIDENT
	[BRIJ MOHAN SHARMA] MEMBER