Haryana

Ambala

CC/21/2015

Mrs.Aarchi Singla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Fun Cinemas ,Galaxy Mall - Opp.Party(s)

In person.

17 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

             Complaint Case No.    : 21 of 2015

 Date of Institution       : 23.01.2015

             Date of Decision         : 17.07.2015

 

Mrs. Aarchi Singla age 21 years wife of Vikas Singla R/o H.No.306 Luxmi Nagar, Jandli, Ambala City, Haryana.

                                                                                                ……Complainant.

Versus

Fun Cinemas, Galaxy Mall, Sector-7, Urban Estate, Ambala City, Haryana.

                                                                                                ……Opposite Party.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:        SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. ANIL SHARMA, MEMBER.

                        MS. ANSUYA BISHNOI, MEMBER.                       

Present:          Complainant in person.

                        Sh. Pardeep Batra, Adv. for OP.

ORDER.

1.                     Complainant has filed the present complaint alleging therein that the Op-firm is a cinema and having its own website on internet.  The complainant got booked ticket for movie show on 17.01.2015 vide Booking No.9 & ID No.6325324 and paid an amount of Rs.433.71NP and after booking of the tickets, the complainant received confirmation on her email ID from OP. It has been alleged that on 17.01.2015, the complainant reached the OP Fun Cinema to see  the movie but the OP did not allow  her to see the movie as the booking was not shown on their system. On enquiry, the OP told that order ID -6325324 is not showing any booking in their system and they have no authority to allow her to see movie.  It has been further alleged by  the complainant that OP misbehaved with the complainant and kept her waiting for about three hours causing mental harassment & wastage of time of complainant.  Hence, the present compliant seeking relief as per prayer clause.

2.                     Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objection qua jurisdiction, locus standi & non-maintainability of complaint.  On merits, it has been urged that the OP is a brand name for running & operating the cinema/multiplex  and carrying on its associated retail activities in India and facilitating the sale of tickets online worldwide.  It is admitted  that  complainant preferred to book the movie tickets online through the cinema website, however, the booking  was not done successfully, the complainant received the communication stating the booking is successful and some unusual booking id got generated due to some technical error inadvertently and there are multiple parties involved in a complete e-commerce transaction, like web server, local server, payment gateway, issuing bank 3D secure server, customer etc.  So, if there is any interruption in the connection between any one of these, the transaction is called off and refund request is raised automatically to avoid any further complications.  As such, there liability is limited  and there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                     In evidence, the complainant tendered her affidavit as Annexure CX alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-4 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, the counsel for OP tendered in evidence documents as Annexures  R-1 to R-5 and closed the evidence.

4.                We have heard the complainant as well as counsel for the OP and gone through the case file very carefully. The main grievance of the complainant is that she  had booked online two tickets with the OP and make the payment of Rs.433.71 NP through debit card  and in response to it, OP has confirmed the booking through their mail but on 17.01.2015 when she went to see the movie to OP theatre, the OP did not allowed  to watch the movie  alleging that the tickets were not confirmed as per their system.

                   On the other hand, the counsel for the Op argued that the bookings of the tickets was not done successfully due to some technical error inadvertently and it may be due to fault in webservers, local server, Payment Gateway, issuing Bank 3D Secure Server, Customer etc.  The Op cannot control the all these, parties who are involved in it, so, if there is any interaction in any of these the transaction is called off and refund request is raised automatically to avoid any complications. In the present case, as per Annexure R-5, they have refunded  the booking amount automatically in the account of the complainant on 19.01.2015. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

                   After hearing the complainant as well as learned counsel for the OP, it is not disputed that two tickets were booked through internet by the complainant by making the payment through her debit card on 16.01.2015 and Op confirmed the same vide their e-mail allotting the 2 seats for 9:15 P.M. on 17.01.2015 but later on the version of OP to the effect that the said booking was not done successfully and some unusual booking ID got generated due to some technical error of internet is not tenable in the eyes of law  since as per document Annexure C-2, it is clear that the booking of the complainant was done successfully and  an e-mail to this effect was also sent by the Op to complainant.  Besides this, from perusal of document Annexure C-4, an amount of Rs.433.71NP has been shown to be debited from the bank account of complainant and the same was refunded /credited by the OP on 23.01.2015 in the account of the complainant. Moreover, from the perusal of documents Annexure C-1, it is also clear that seat Nos. B-23 & B-24 were also allotted to the complainant, even though she was not allowed to see the movie despite of confirmed ticket from internet. Apart from this, the OP was having  option to issue manual tickets to the complainant on producing of internet ticket by the complainant but they did not do so which is admittedly  a deficiency in service on the part of Op.  Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and OP is directed to comply with the following directions within thirty days from the communication of this order:-

1. To pay a sum of Rs.3000/- to the complainant on account of mental & Physical harassment.
2. Also to pay Rs.1000/- as litigation costs etc.

 

                   Further the award in question/directions issued above must be complied with by the OP  within a stipulated period failing which the aforesaid awarded amounts  shall further attract interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default. So, the complaint is allowed in above term. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

 

Announced in open Court.17.07.2015

                                                                                        Sd/-

                                                                              (A.K. SARDANA)

               PRESIDENT       

 

                      Sd/-

(ANIL SHARMA)

                                                                                       MEMBER

 

                                                                                         Sd/-

    (ANSUYA BISHNOI)

                                                                                       MEMBER