DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 143  of  2021

 

 

Sri Goutam Dey,

S/O- Gopal Chandra Dey,

Abhoynagar,

Near Blood Sun Club.

P.O.- Abhoynagar,

P.S. NCC Police Station,

District- West Tripura- 799005. ..........Complainant.

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

1. Director (Prasant Pitti)

Ease My Trip,

Building No- 223.

Patparganj Industrial Area,

Patparganj, New Delhi,

Pin-110092,

P.S. Madhu Vihar Patparganj Police Station.

 

 

2. Chairman & Managing Director Air-India Limited,

Air India,

Airlines House,

113, Gurudwara Rakabganj Road,

Sansad Marg Area,

New Delhi, Delhi – 110001,

P.S. Sansad Marg Police Station.

 

 

3. Station Manager Agartala Air-India Limited,

Air India,

Agartala Airport,

Agartala, Tripura- 799009,

P.S. Narsinghgarh Police Station. ......Opposite Parties.

 

 

 

    __________PRESENT__________

 SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

  WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant  : In person.

 

For the O.P. 1 : Sri Dipankar Das,

  Sri Ranjan Bhattacharya,

  Learned Advocates.

 

For the O.P. No. 2 & 3 : Sri Pradip Chakraborty,

  Learned Advocate.

 

 

ORDER   DELIVERED  ON:  31.03.2023.

 

F I N A L    O R D E R

The case arose due to a complaint petition filed by Sri Goutam Dey, S/o Gopal Dey of Abhoynagar (here-in-after referred to as 'the Complainant') against: (1) Director (Prashant Pitti), EASE MY TRIP, New Delhi (here-in-after referred to as 'the O.P.1') (2) Chairman & Managing Director Air India Limited, Air India, Airlines House, New Delhi (here-in-after referred to as 'the O.P.2') (3) Station Manager Agartala Air-India Ltd., Agartala, Tripura (here-in-after referred to as 'the O.P.3') under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  

2. The Complainant's case is epitomized as under:

2.1 The Complainant booked air-ticket to travel from Agartala to Kolkata on 27th July, 2020 by flight operated by O.P.2 and O.P.3. The ticket was booked through the O.P.1, an e-travel service provider and value of the ticket was Rs.4332/-.

2.2 Due to the lock-down announced by the Government due to Covid pandemic situation, the Complainant requested the O.P.1 for a reschedule of the journey date. As per advice of the O.P.1, the Complainant cancelled the booking and, later on, requested O.P.2 for reschedule of journey date.

2.3 O.P.2 issued revised ticket rescheduling the journey date on 18th June, 2021. Subsequently, the Complainant discovered that his booking for air travel on 18th June, 2021 was cancelled by the O.P.2. It is alleged that the O.P.2 did not provide any prior intimation for such cancellation of the journey.

2.4 Thereafter, the Complainant took up the issue with O.P.1 for refund of amount against cancellation of booking. But, the O.P.1 declined to make full refund of the amount. On being referred the issue to the O.P.2, it was learnt by the Complainant that the O.P.1 got full refund of the ticket value from O.P.2 against cancellation of the booking.

2.5 The Complainant kept on pursuing the matter with O.P.1 and O.P.2 for refund of the full value of booking ticket but his attempts were of no avail.

2.6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant filed this complaint to the Commission seeking compensation and a litigation cost amounting to Rs.3 lakhs and Rs.10,000/- respectively.

2.7. Hence, this case.  

3. O.P.1 submitted written version whereby it is pointed out that since the Complainant agreed to the terms and condition prior to booking the ticket, he is constrained to adhere to the terms and conditions of cancellation. It is also submitted that the Complainant consciously cancelled the booking and, therefore, his claim for full refund does not stand valid.

3.1. The O.P.2 and O.P.3 submitted written version stating that immediately after cancellation of the scheduled flight, the full value for booking the ticket was refunded to O.P.1. Which is why, they do not have any liability left towards the allegations made out in the complaint petition.

4. The Complainant submitted evidence on affidavit replicating the points mentioned in the complaint petition.

4.1 The O.P.1 submitted evidence on affidavit making out the similar points, as outlined in their written version. The O.P.2 and O.P.3, submitted evidence on affidavit pointed out the same issues, as being highlighted in their written version.

5. Now, the points to be decided, in the instant case, are as under:

5.1 Whether the O.P.1 has adopted unfair trade practice by not refunding the full amount against cancellation of booking?

5.2 Whether the O.P.2 and O.P.3 committed any deficiency in service by cancelling the scheduled flight?

5.3 Whether the Complainant is entitled to get the relief, as prayed for?

6. The case has been argued by the Complainant and the Learned Counsels of O.P.1, O.P.2 and O.P.3. The salient points of the arguments are as under:

6.1 The Complainant argued that he had to suffer immensely due to abrupt cancellation of the booking by the O.P.2 and O.P.3. No intimation whatsoever was communicated to him in regards to cancellation of his booking by the O.P.2 and O.P.3. To add further to his pain, he was denied full refund against the cancellation of the air-journey by the O.P.1. It has been submitted that O.P.1 has partially refunded an amount of Rs.1996 to the Complainant on 21st March, 2022 as against the full value of Rs.4332. The amount was refunded by the O.P.1 after filing of the instant complaint petition.

6.2 It is argued by the O.P.1 that the Complainant on his own volition, cancelled the booking. The Complainant agreed the terms and conditions of cancellation of ticket prior to booking his journey. Therefore, the Complainant is not entitled to get refund for cancellation of the booking in pursuance of the terms and condition, so agreed. 

6.3 The learned counsel from the side of the O.P.2 and O.P.3 argued that they had refunded the full amount towards the cost of booking ticket to the O.P.1, in consequent to the cancellation of the booking. It has also been categorically mentioned that the appropriate virtual system shows that the Complainant received full refund from the O.P.1. As such, for them, no liability exists against the cancellation of the booking.

7. We have examined and perused the documents submitted by the parties. On appraisal of the materials on record, it transpires that due to the lock-down announced on account of Covid pandemic situation, the Complainant wanted to reschedule his air-journey. For such purpose, the Complainant cancelled the scheduled booking. Thereafter, on request, the O.P.2 and O.P.3 rescheduled his air-journey on 18th June, 2021 by issuing fresh ticket. 

7.1 Later on, the Complainant learnt about cancellation of his journey, so rescheduled, by the O.P.2 and O.P.3. As a result, the Complainant demanded full refund from the O.P.1 against cancellation of the booking. The O.P.1 initially declined to refund any amount. But, in the wake of filing the complaint petition, the O.P.1 ensured partial refund by paying an amount of Rs.1996 on 21st March, 2022.

7.2 It has been asserted by testifying that the O.P.2 and O.P.3 had refunded the full value to O.P.1 against the cancellation of the ticket. It has also been disclosed by the O.P.2 and O.P.3 that the pertinent virtual system in place, demonstrates the receipt of full refund by the Complainant from the O.P.1. 

7.3 We consider that it is a fraudulent exercise committed by the O.P.1 not to refund the full amount to the Complainant despite their receiving full value from O.P.2 and O.P.3 against the cancellation of the booking. The O.P.1, even more, make it worse by uploading false exposition of making full refund to the Complainant in to the virtual system. This is a deceptive practice undertook by the O.P.1 totally in bad faith. Therefore, it can, unhesitatingly, be termed as adoption of unfair trade practice by the O.P.1. Leaning on this, it is viewed that such wrong-doing and offence perpetrated by the O.P.1 caused distress, sufferings and anxiety to the Complainant. 

7.4 The O.P.2 and O.P.3 refunded the full amount to O.P.1 against cancellation of the booking. The O.P.2 and O.P.3 can not refund the amount directly to the Complainant as because the Complainant booked the ticket by using the e-booking platform of O.P.1. Therefore, we find no deficiency in service on the part of O.P.2 and O.P.3. 

8. We, therefore, hold that the complaint petition succeeds partially.  We, thus, direct the O.P.1 to pay the remaining amount Rs.2336 (Rs.4332 minus Rs.1996) to the Complainant towards making full refund of the value of booking ticket within two months from the date of this order. We further order that the O.P.1 shall pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- as cost to the Complainant within two months from this date. Failing to comply the order within the specified time, both the amounts shall bear interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of this order till realization.

9. All the points are, accordingly, decided. Hence, the case stands disposed of. Supply copy of this Final Order free of cost to the parties.

 

Announced.

 

 

 

SRI  GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA.