On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and negligence in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to refund the amount to the tune of Rs.36,287/- alongwith upto date interest to the tune of 9% interest and the opposite parties may kindly be burdened with compensation and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of harassment, mental agony and torture faced by the complainant and his son due to the illegal, cryptic, arbitrary, in genuine and exorbitant act and conduct of the opposite parties, in the interest of justice. The complainant may also granted any other relief which this Ld. Commission may deem fit.
3. Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply, stating therein that customer made the first reservation on dated 23rd may, 2018 at 19:35 hours and he made a same reservation once again on same date at 19:53 hours. It is further pleaded that tickets in question were made by the Complainant himself by using easemytrip.com portal, without any help or interfering of any executive. It is pleaded that after 2 days i.e. on 25th May, 2018 Ms. Chetna (Executive of Easy Trip Planners Pvt. Ltd.) called to the customer by saying that he made a dual reservation that time customer has realized the same. It is further pleaded that then he sent us an E-mail for refund and we have escalated to Air India airline, which was denied by them to refund as per their policy, as such there is no fault from our end. It is further pleaded that the complainant himself feed the data (IN BOTH THE TIME) like, the selections of travel time, Date, Flight, Airlines, amount and further feed details like name etc. It is further pleaded that before proceeding further for making another ticket, Complainant had to call our Office & enquire about the status of the 1st Ticket, which he is fail to do so, Hence, Customer fail to fulfill his duties and dispute arise as per term & condition with company. It is further pleaded that we refunded Rs.2950/- without any deduction by Easy Trip Planners Pvt. Ltd. which we received from Air India. It is further pleaded that that the amount of both the tickets has automatically been transferred to the Air India, which was received from customer. It is further pleaded that ticket was cancelled on request of customer after our executive informed to him after two days. It is further pleaded that since, the payment was made to Air India and refund had been denied by Air India, the partial payment which was received from Airline has already been transferred to the complainant. It is further pleaded that Easy Trip Planners do not have any amount to refund. It is further pleaded that the customer had to call Easy Trip Planners and after confirmation he could make another ticket as per requirement, as technical error can be occurred with any one. It is further pleaded that company has already mentioned all the information in "Term & Condition" on the portal which every customer accepts and proceeds further for booking. It is further pleaded that we can refund the amount if we receive the same from Air India. It is further pleaded that it is also possible that two persons made tickets by using two different Cards, Now claiming refund of one ticket and when the ticket is marked "Non-refundable" usually company denied for refund.
On merits, the opposite party No.1 denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Upon notice, the opposite parties No.2 and 3 appeared through counsels and contested the complaint and filing their joint written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint against the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 is not maintainable. It is further pleaded that it is malafide one as it is filed by the complainant just to harass, pressurize and drag the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 into unnecessary and frivolous litigation. It is pleaded that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties No. 2 and 3, as such, this complaint does not lie against them and no cause of action arose to the complainant to file this complaint against the opposite parties No. 2 and 3. It is further pleaded that there is no direct contract of the complainant with the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 with regard to the matter in question. It is further pleaded that only the opposite party No. 1 is liable towards the complainant for the payment of amount if any, awarded by the Hon'ble Commission. It is further pleaded that the complainant got booked his son's ticket through the opposite party No. 1 and there is no direct contract of the complainant with the opposite parties No. 2 and 3. It is further pleaded that complainant never communicated with the replying opposite parties regarding booking of 2 tickets or for the cancellation of his son’s one ticket. It is further pleaded that even the opposite party No. 1 had never communicated with the replying opposite parties that there are 2 tickets booked and confirmed in the name of the complainant’s son Inderbir Singh or regarding cancellation of his one ticket. It is further pleaded that the opposite party No. 1 is the agent of BSP (Banking System Plan) under IATA (International Air Transport Association) according to which, the opposite party No. 1 can issue ticket from BSP directly and similarly, the refund of any amount can be made by the agent directly, therefore, no E-mail was received by the replying opposite parties from the BSP. It is further pleaded that such transactions can be made by the opposite party No. 1 without involvement of Air India, as per Rules. It is further pleaded that there was no request either from the complainant, his son or from the opposite party No. 1 for the cancellation of one ticket for the journey from Delhi to Melbourne for the date 06.06.2018. It is further pleaded that Status of ticket of the passenger, bearing No. 0982680044020 in the name of Inderbir Singh, Clearly shows "Refunded". It is further pleaded that in the Cancellation & Refund Rules of Air India, it is clearly mentioned that Both No show and cancellation charges apply. It is further pleaded that No show is when a pax fails to cancel booking at least 24 hrs before departure of the flight being cancelled" and in this case, the entire liability is that of the opposite party No.1 because it is the BSP agent and it can book the tickets and also can make refund of any amount to the passenger directly without involvement of the replying opposite parties. It is further pleaded that it is shown in the refund history that an amount of Rs.2950/- is refunded by BSP agent on 29.06.2018 and the refund was made as per the Cancellation & Refundable Rules of Air India. It is further pleaded that even no document of any communication by the complainant or by the opposite party No.1, with the replying opposite parties such as any application of request or E-mail for the cancellation of one ticket and this shows that there is no negligence of any kind nor there is deficiency in service on the part of the replying opposite parties towards the complainant. It is a case of negligence of the opposite party No.1 and not that of the replying opposite parties, as such, the replying opposite parties cannot be held liable for anything, with respect to the payment of any amount to the complainant. It is further pleaded that so far as the technical error displayed on the screen of the site of the opposite party No. 1.
On merits, the opposite parties No.2 and 3 have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Shamsher Singh, (Complainant) as Ex.CW-1 alongwith other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 has filed documents as Ex.OP-1/1 to Ex.OP-1/7 alongwith reply.
7. Learned counsels for the opposite parties No.2 and 3 have tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Ashok Singh, (Station Master, Air India, at Sri Guru Ram Dass International Airport, Amritsar) as Ex.OP-2,3/1 alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-2,3/2 to Ex.OP-2,3/5.
8. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.
9. Written arguments filed by the complainant and also filed by the opposite parties No.2 and 3, but not filed by the opposite party No.1.
10. Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant had booked ticket for his son from opposite party No.1 on 23.05.2018 but due to some technical error which was displayed on the screen of the site of opposite party No.1, the ticket was not booked and after waiting for few minutes complainant again tried to book ticket from online site of opposite party No.1 through a different debit card and this time complainant got a confirmation regarding booking of ticket but thereafter complainant found that one more ticket was booked pertaining to the previous try and amount was deducted from the account of the complainant vide which ATM card was used in the previous failed transaction. Complainant had immediately informed opposite party No.1 and requested for refund. However, opposite parties refused to refund the amount of Rs.36,287/- which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
11. On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties no.1 has argued that the complainant had made first reservation at 19:35 hours and made reservation again at 19:53 hours and tickets were made by the complainant himself by using easemytrip.com portal and after two days representative of opposite party No.1 had informed the complainant about double reservation. It is further argued that clam if any is to be paid by opposite parties No.2 and 3 and opposite party No.1 has already refund Rs.2950/- to the complainant and as such there is no deficiency in service.
12. Counsels for the opposite parties No.2 and 3 have argued that there is no communication or contract between complainant and opposite parties No.2 and 3 and since the payment was received by opposite party No.1 and as such the liability if any is of opposite party No.1. It is further argued that opposite party No1 is agent of Banking System Plan under International Air Transport Association (IATA) and as such opposite party No.1 can issue tickets from Banking System Plan (BSP) directly and refund any amount and as such involvement of opposite parties No.2 and 3 is not required.
13. We have heard the Ld. counsels for the parties and gone through the record.
14. It is admitted fact that complainant had booked ticket for his son Inderbir Singh from Delhi to Melbourne on 23.05.2018. It is further admitted fact that ticket was booked for two times for same person on same date for same journey. It is further admitted fact that first ticket has been cancelled. The only disputed issued for adjudication before this Commission is whether the opposite parties are liable to refund the entire amount of Rs.36,287/- to the complainant or not.
15. To prove his case complainant has placed on record his duly sworn affidavit, copy of statement of account Ex.C1, copies of E-mails Ex.C2, copies of air tickets Ex.C3 and Ex.C4, copy of cancellation of ticket Ex.C5 and copy of statement of account Ex.C6 whereas opposite party No.1 has placed on record user agreement Ex.OP1/1, copy of terms and conditions Ex.OP-1/2, copy of detail of payment error Ex.OP-1/3, copy of refund detail Ex.OP-1/4, copy of full refund request Ex.OP-1/5, copy of report of concerned branch Ex.OP-1/6 and copy of booking ticket summary Ex.OP-1/7. Opposite parties No.2 and 3 have placed on record affidavit of Ashok Singh Station Manager Ex.OP-2,3/1 and copies of documents Ex.OP-2,3/2 to Ex.OP-2,3/5.
16. Perusal of record shows that receipt of payment of Rs.36,287 is fully proved on record. It is further admitted case that amount of Rs.2950/- has been refunded by opposite party No.1 and the dispute is only regarding refund of balance amount of Rs.33,337/-. Perusal or record and evidence shows that opposite party No.1 is agent of Banking System Plan (BSP) under International Air Transport Association (IATA) and was authorized to issue tickets from banking system plan directly and was having authority to refund any amount and as such since opposite party No.1 received the amount from the complainant in respect of first ticket which later on cancelled. Moreover, the error was in the site of the opposite party No.1 and since the complainant is a ordinary citizen and was booking the ticket in genuine manner by making payment and the ticket was booked two times due to the error in the site of opposite party No.1 and as such no fault can be attributed to the complainant. Accordingly, we are of view that complainant is definitely entitle to receive the refund of balance amount of Rs.33,337/- from opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 can recover the amount from opposite parties No.2 and 3 if permissible under law.
17. Accordingly, present complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties No.1 is directed to refund the balance amount of Rs.33,337/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
18. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
19. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.
(Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President.
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
Nov. 20, 2023 Member.
*YP*
