This appeal is directed against the Final Order dated 13.02.2020 delivered by Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Uttar Dinajpur at Raiganj in CC No 2 of 2020. The fact of the case in nutshell is that the Complainants/Appellants Dr. D. Sarkar and B. Chakraborty registered a Consumer Complaint to the effect that they, senior citizens, photography lover and member of the Indian Photographic Association prescheduled to wild photography tour to the state of Tanzania, Africa. The Complainants in order to make ready of such tour purchased online air tickets from Emirates India Ltd. through travel agency Make My Trip by using net banking system for travelling by air from Mumbai to Addis Ababa, Addis Ababa to Kilimanjaro and return from Kilimanjaro to Dubai and Dubai to Mumbai. They availed themselves of the air travel from Mumbai to Kilimanjaro. During return journey of Kilimanjaro, they came to know that the service of the Emirates Airlines was withdrawn and the authority of airlines requested them to avail themselves the air travel from Daresalam to Dubai by providing another car and thereafter they would come to Dubai availing air travel from Daresalam to Dubai and thereafter from Dubai to Mumbai by air travel and those air travels were provided by the Emirates and Make My Trip. The Complainants case was that the inconvenience of them had to face totally against the agreement between the Complainants and the travel agencies and such inconvenience was nothing but to harassment of bonafide customers and for that reason, they prayed for sufficient compensation by registering the Consumer Complaint against the Emirates India Pvt. Ltd. and Make My Trip that is O.P No. 1 and O.P No. 2. The case was placed for its admission before the Ld. Forum and Ld. Forum after hearing the Ld. Advocate of the Complainant came into a conclusion that there was no material to entertain the Consumer Complaint for admission as there was no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties and for that reason, the instant Consumer Complaint was dismissed as it was not admitted on its merit. Being aggrieved with this order this appeal follows on the ground that the order of Ld. Forum suffers from misappreciation of law, mis-judge of the actual facts and suffers from irregularities, errors and miscarriage of justice. The appeal was registered in due course and it was admitted on merit. Both the respondents Emirates India and Make My Trip Pvt. Ltd. was sent notice of Memo of Appeal. They have received the notice in due course through Post and has contested the appeal through their Ld. Legal Counsels. The appeal was placed for hearing at final stage where the respondent No. 1 was represented through Ld. Advocate Mr. R.K. Sharma and Miss. Simran Garg and conducted the hearing while the respondent No. 2 has conducted the hearing through Ld. Advocate Mr. Rabbani & Others. The appellants have conducted the hearing through Ld. Advocate Mr. B. Saha, Miss. D. Chakraborty & Others. The appeal of both sides was heard.

Decision with reasons

In this case the respondent No. 2 Make My Trip Pvt. Ltd. submitted the reply against the Memo of Appeal and submitted that the respondent No. 2 is a consumer centric company which was managed through online web portal and provides all the travel related first class services and information to its customer including purchasing of air ticketing, railway ticketing, Bus booking, hotel booking etc for the convenience of the travelers. The respondent No. 2 acted merely a facilitator for booking the confirm air tickets, hotel bookings on behalf of the customers. The respondent No. 2 in this case was not responsible or liable for any deficiency of service from their part and if there was any in deficiency is raised upon the airline’s authority. As once the confirm bookings are shared with the customers the travel agency is discharged from its obligation and duties qua the said bookings. Being a travel agency, the respondent No. 2 had assisted it’s the customers by furnishing the information in details about the tours and travels. They have no latches on their part and no cause of action is there against this travel company. During the course of hearing of the case Ld. Advocate of the respondent No. 2 Mr. Rabbani submits that the appellants have miserably failed to make out in a case against the respondent No. 2 for the alleged deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. The appellants themselves have accepted the policies of the respondent No. 2 while booking the tickets from the web portal of respondent No. 2. The appellants were duly assisted by respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 being a merely facilitator between the service providers and the customer had no liability for any fault on the part of the air travel company. Ld. Advocate further mentioned that in this particular case while the Emirates Air flights from Kilimanjaro to Mumbai was suspended then alternative arrangement was made for the travel of the Complainant from Deresalam to Dubai and from Dubai to Mumbai and sufficient arrangement also made for the Complainants/Appellants for their travel from Kilimanjaro to Daresalam by road and for that reason Ld. Forum has rightly observed that no deficiency of service was there on the part of both O.P No. 1 and O.P No. 2. The O.P No. 1 that is respondent No. 1 of this appeal case has contested the appeal case and during the course of hearing mentioned when the flight was cancelled alternative arrangement was made for the Complainant’s journey without causing any inconvenience and no deficiency of service was there on behalf of respondent No.1. Complainants/Appellants countered the argument of the Ld. Advocate of the respondent by Ld. Advocate Mr. B. Saha that in this case there was utter failure on the part of both respondent No. 1 and 2 to inform the appellants about the withdrawal of airservice from Kilimanjaro airport as because when the appellants have made correspondents with respondents as to why the respondent No. 1 failed to communicate the withdrawal or cancellation of his service from Kilimanjaro airport since 2018 then a text massage was sent in response to a email of Complainant by mentioning “ a system generated massage in this regard was sent to your travel agent” in spite of that after a few weeks that is on 26.04.2019 the Customer Affairs Department of the respondent No. 1 Emirates India sent another email to the appellant No. 2 and inform him that on review of the matter the respondent No. 1 had come to the conclusion that incidentally the massage regarding the schedule change did not relate which resulted in you be inconvenience at Kilimanjaro airport which was a clear admission of latches in deficiency of service.

After, going through the pleadings of both sides and after hearing the valuable arguments canvassed before this Bench through their Ld. Legal Counsels it appears to us that whether there was any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent No. 1 and 2 is nothing but mixed question of facts and law and that shall have to be ascertained through a process of recording evidence, examination, cross-examination of witnesses etc. And mere admission stage there was no reasonable ground to hold without going into the merit of the case that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2. So, the observation of Ld. Forum appears to be very misjudge of actual position and in this way the principle of Judgement delivery system by applying the judicial mind and approach has not been complied with. Admittedly, both the Complainants were the Consumer’s as they were suppose to avail the smooth travel facilities for their trip to Kilimanjaro through travel agency and air service authority by paying the regular fees and charges. They, felt that they were unnecessarily deprived the facilities assured by both the travel agencies at the time of purchasing the tickets. They felt that no proper service was provided to them in an expertise manner and they had to suffer in the said trip due to latches on the part of the service providers. Their grievances should be addressed emotionally and judiciously by the authority who has been vested the power to adjudicate such dispute in a prudent manner. But here in this case the Complainants as bonafide consumers could not avail the opportunity to ventilate their grievances through the regular course of process as enunciated in the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. So, the Bench thinks it fit to interfere with the order of the Ld. Forum to prevent the miscarriage of justice.

Hence, it’s ordered

That the appeal be and the same is hereby allowed on contest without any cost. The order of Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Uttar Dinajpur at Raiganj bearing No. 4 dated 13.02.2020 in CC No 2 of 2020 is hereby set aside. For the convenience of this case and shorten the time limit, the instant Consumer Complaint registered before the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Uttar Dinajpur bearing No CC 2 of 2020 is hereby admitted on merit. Both the respondents as O.P Nos. 1 & 2 of that case have already become aware about the existence of the case and for that reason they are asked to file W.V within 45 days from this day to contest the instant Consumer Complaint, failing which the Ld. Forum shall adjudicate the dispute Ex-parte and if the respondents as O.P of that case file W.V within 45 days then Ld. Forum shall adjudicate the dispute by taking the process of recording evidences and after hearing both sides the final verdict shall have to be delivered within a short span of time.

Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost and the order be communicated to the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Uttar Dinajpur for doing the needful.