Orissa

Cuttak

CC/91/2019

Gayatri Patra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Director, MakemyTrip India Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

M Agrawal

02 Sep 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                      C.C.No.91/2019

Miss Gayatri Patra,

D/O:Late Justice R.K.Patra,

Peprmanently residing at Plot No.1B/23,

Sector-11,C.D.A,Cuttack-753014,Odisha.                ... Complainant.

        

                                                Vrs.

MakeMyTrip India Private Limited,

A Company incorporated under the Companies Act,1956,

Represented through its Director, having its head

Office at DLF Building No.5, Tower B,

DLF Cyber City,DLF Phade 2,Sector-25,

Gurugram,Haryana-122002....Opp. Party.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    07.08.2019

Date of Order:  02.09.2022

 

For the complainant:                Mr. M.Agarwal,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P :                               Mr. S.Das,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                                     

            Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that she being lured by the Europe Trip as available in the Website offered by the O.P had procured from the O.P a quotation through e.mail on 4.5.19. A sum of Rs.3,77,999/- was demanded for herself and so also for one of her friend and the journey was to commence from 11.6.19 till 19.6.19.  The quotation included Air fare, accommodation fare for hotels and food for two persons.  As per the payment schedule policy, the complainant had paid Rs.63,000/- on 4.5.19 from her ICICI Bank at Link Road,Cuttack.  On 6.5.19 the O.P confirmed her tour package alongwith her friend.  On 12.5.19, the complainant had further paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the O.P from her said bank but due to some medical exigencies, friend of the complainant opted to be out from the tour package and the same was duly intimated to the O.P through e.mail on 13.5.19 by the complainant.  But the O.P intimated the complainant that the initial payment as made for the co-passenger is non-refundable on cancellation of her booking as per the terms and conditions of the tour package.  On 13.5.19, the complainant received another e.mail from the O.P wherein the cost of one passenger was enhanced and was to be of Rs.2,03,990/- instead of Rs.1,88,989/- was quoted earlier.  On 15.5.19 the complainant had paid a further sum of Rs.8990/- towards her VISA application from her HDFC Bank account at College Square,Cuttack.  On 17.5.19 the VISA application of the complainant was booked vide Visa Facilitation Centre,Kolkata bearing application no.GWF052250978.  On 25.5.19 the complainant received a call from the O.P to pay the cancellation charges of the co-passenger or else the package of the first passenger would be cancelled.  Accordingly, the complainant paid Rs.65,000/- from her S.B.I Account, Cuttack and Rs.36,990/- from her HDFC Account,College Square,Cuttack to the O.P.  Thus, she had paid a total amount of Rs.10,990/- towards the cancellation of the co-passenger.  On 25.5.19 the complainant received another e.mail from the O.P asking her to make full payment of Rs.2,47,990/- when there was delay in obtaining the Visa.  The O.P through e.mail dt.10.6.19 intimated the complainant that her passport was stuck at the Embassy and   thus, the booking cancellation at this stage, was non-refundable as per the policy.  The complainant had sent e.mail to the O.P on 13.6.19 and intimated that the VISA is stuck under processing at the Embassy.  But on 14.6.19 the O.P cancelled the tour booking of the complainant and had thereby forfeited the entire money deposited by the complainant in contravention to the booking terms and conditions.  On 25.6.19, the complainant was handed over the passport and approved VISA from Facilitation Centre,Kolkata but the complainant was prevented from undertaking the tour due to delay in processing of VISA Application of the UK Embassy, over which the complainant had no control.  The O.P had forfeited the entire deposited money by the complainant in contravention to the terms and conditions.  Thus, it is alleged by the complainant that the O.P had practised unfair trade and were deficient in their service for which she has filed this case claiming refund from the O.P. the booking amount of Rs.1,89,990/-, compensation amount of Rs.,1,00,000/- towards the mental agony as suffered by her and also a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards her litigation expenses.

            She has filed copies of documents in order to prove her case.

2.         On the other hand, the O.P has contested this case and has filed written version.  It is the contention of the O.P in his written version that the complainant is not entitled to the claim as made, she has not approached with clean hands, has  suppressed material facts.  The O.P admits to be enabling the tourists visit foreign countries as a facilitator for booking of Air tickets, Railway tickets, Bus tickets, Hotel bookings etc.  According to the O.P, the intending party who desires to avail their services are abide to the terms and conditions of the User Agreement.  Thus, the intending traveller has to enter into the e.contract with the O.P to that effect.  The complainant had received her booking I.D No.NL2202531871156, Package:Majestic London & Scotland 2019’ Travelling Dates: 11^th June 2019 & 19^th June 2019,Travellers: Gayatri Patra, Total Package Price: Rs.2,47,990/-(Rupees two lakhs, forty-seven Thousand, Nine Hundred and ninety only).  The O.P has claimed not to be responsible or liable for any deficiency caused on the part of the Airlines/service providers.  Once the bookings are shared with the customer, the O.P is discharged from applications of duties.  The complainant as intending traveller was under the duty to verify the itinery provided before availing the package.  The complainant had consented to the terms and conditions of the O.P while booking as one intended traveller and for this, the O.P is not liable for  deficiency in service caused if any by the Airlines, Hotel, Hospitality and service providers.  The O.P has stressed that as per the cancellation policy, it can be done at any time but the amount paid would be non-refundable.  The O.P has filed copies of the terms and conditions alongwith his written version.  According to the provisions of cancellation due to VISA Application, the O.P here in this case is not liable and shall also not be liable for the delay response from the VISA authorities.  Thus the O.P through his written version has stated that there was no deficiency in service nor he had practised any unfair trade and accordingly has prayed to dismiss the complaint petition with exemplary costs and to pass any order as deemed fit and proper.

            The O.P has filed copies of series of documents in order to prove his case.

3.         Keeping in mind, the averments as made in the complaint petition and that in the written version as filed by O.P, this Commission is of a view to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion here in this case.

            i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

            ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of O.P?

            iii.        Whether the O.P had practised any unfair trade?

            iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issue No.ii.

            Issue no.2 being the pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

            Admittedly, the complainant had consented to proceed with her friend on Europe Tour through the O.P with effect from 11.6.19 till 19.6.19 and admitting about the charges thereon as per the quotation of the O.P. she had paid money to that effect.  Subsequently due to medical exigencies her friend had dropped out from the tour package and the fact when communicated to the O.P, the complainant could learn that the advance paid is non-refundable as per the terms and conditions of the tour package.  Ultimately, the complainant could not avail the VISA in time though she had applied, and she got her VISA for her tour at a delayed date i.e., on 25.6.19.  She was therefore not allowed to proceed for the Europe tour as desired as because her tour package was effective from 11.6.19 to 19.6.19.  Admittedly, there was e-contract inbetween the complainant and the O.P and when she agreed to the terms and conditions of the agreement for her package,  she had proceeded by giving her consent to that effect electronically.  Admittedly the O.P is only a facilitator whose job is to facilitate the tour programme making it smooth by getting all the confirmed bookings as regards to the journey tickets and the accommodation.  As per the terms and conditions of the agreement of the tour package, when the friend of the complainant could not proceed due to her medical exigency, the money advanced could not be refunded by the O.P, the complainant has not filed or placed before this Commission any condition thereto in the agreement enabling refund of money, if any, to that effect.  Her delayed procuring in VISA for her tour programme did not entitle her to proceed in the Europe tour as desired and agreed by her with the O.P and as per the terms and conditions, her total money was non-refundable.  The complainant had not filed any documents showing that if there was any provision for refund or enabling her to proceed at a rescheduled date for her desired Europe tour through the O.P.  In absence of such, this Commission is constrained to hold that there was no deficiency noticed on the part of the O.P and accordingly this issue is answered in favour of the O.P.

 

Issue no.iii.

            The complainant has alleged that the O.P by not letting her proceed in a rescheduled tour package to Europe and also by not refunding her money had thereby practised unfair trade.  Be that as it may, this Commission lacks jurisdiction to decide if the O.P had practised unfair trade and accordingly, this Commission is unable to come to a legitimate conclusion to that effect.

Issues no.1 & iv.

            As per the discussions made in issue no.iii, this Commission of an opinion that the complainant by complaining of unfair trade has knocked door of this Commission which lacks jurisdiction to entertain her grievances and thus her complaint petition as filed cannot be said here before this Commission to be maintainable and that consequently she is entitled to the reliefs.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                            ORDER

The case is dismissed on contest against O.P and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.