Haryana

StateCommission

RP/96/2019

MAKE MY TRIP INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

GAGAN SEHGAL AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

NITIN BHASIN

22 Jan 2020

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

  First Appeal No.96   of 2019

 Date of Institution:22.11.2019

  Date  of  Decision:22.01.2020

 

MakeMy Trip (India) Pvt. Limited, Building No.5, Tower-B, 19^th Floor, Building No.5 (EPITOM), DLF Cyber City, Phase-3, Gurugram 122002, Haryana.

…..Petitioner

Versus

 

1.      Gagan Sehgal Advocate District Courts Karnal, R/o H.No.281, Sectgor-32, Narsi Village, Karnal 132001.

 

2.      Royal Residency, (Hotel) Ettines Road, Bombay Kist, Otty. Tamil Nadu.

…..Respondents

 

CORAM:    Mr.Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial  Member

                    Mrs. Manjula, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Nitin  Bhasin, Advocate for the petitioner.

 

                                                 ORDER

HARNAM SINGH THAKUR,  JUDICIAL MEMBER:

           

          Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated  16.10.2019 in execution Case No.88 of 2019 filed in Consumer complaint No. 225 of 2018 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (In short ‘the forum) vide which  bailable warrants has been issued against O.P.No.1-petitioner.

2.      The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is practicing lawyer, at Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, District Court Karnal since 2001. During the summer vacation, the complainant planned to spend their vacation in Dalhousie, Himachal Pradesh. The complainant had booked the Royal Residency, Dalhousie from 20^th June 2018 to 23^rd June 2018 and paid Rs.10,620/- through credit card, which was duly credited in the account of OP No.2 through OP No.1, but, on 19^th June 2018 no message of confirmation was received by him from OP.   On 20^th June 2018 at 01.45 a.m. he received one SMS from OP No.1, which  shows that confirmation of the hotel booking in Royal Residency, but, the place was not mentioned.  He with their two children started journey by their own car from Karnal to Dalhousie and reached Dalhousie at about 7.00 p.m. on 20.06.2018. When he contacted the hotel, the manager of the hotel told him that  the booking of the room was not with it. The manager also told that the hotel booked by complainant namely Royal Residency is located at Ooty, Tamil Nadu.   At that time, the complainant booked room and paid Rs.20,000/- for two nights. The manager of the said hotel had given one mobile number of one Shri Amit who is state head of Make My Trip of Himachal Pradesh.  He requested Mr. Amit to refund the paid amount of Rs.10,620/- to him, but, to no avail.  Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

3.      Notice was issued to the opposite parties.  O.P.No.1 filed written version stating that the OP confirmed the booking of complainant for Royal Residency, Ooty instead of Royal Residency, Dalhousie are false and same are denied.   On 19.06.2018, the complainant got booked one room at Hotel Royal Residency, Ooty from 20.06.2018 to 23.06.2018 by paying an amount of Rs.10,620/- and accordingly, the OP No.1 confirmed the booking.  The complainant also inserted wrong email IDs at the time of confirming the bookings, as a result thereof, the complainant could not receive the hotel voucher on e.mail.  The complainant himself made the booking for wrong city i.e. Ooty instead of Dalhousie.  Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No.1.

4.      O.P.No.2 was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 28.11.2018.

5.      The argument has been advanced by Sh.Nitin  Bhasin, the learned counsel for the petitioner. With his kind assistance the original file including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of  revisionist had also been properly perused and examined.

6.      After hearing learned counsel for the revisionist (JD No.1) we of the considered view that revision petition is without merits.  Revisionist company has challenged the order dated 16.10.2019 passed by the learned District Forum, Karnal vide which bailable warrants have been issued against petitioner(JD NJo.1) for not making the remaining payment.

7.      It is argued by learned counsel for the revisionist-JD No.1 that           share of  JD No.1-revisionist Rs.15,864/- has already been paid to the complainant-Gagan Sehgal and remaining payment is to be made by opposite party No.2. However, this contention of learned counsel for revisionist- J.D. No.1 is not much convincing because as per original order dated 21.05.2019 passed by the learned District Forum complaint has been allowed and O.Ps. have been directed to refund Rs.10,620/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till its realization. Moreover, the O.Ps were also directed to pay Rs.20,000/-  on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. The said order reveals that the liability of the O.Ps. including present revisionist is joint and it cannot be segregated to say that revisionist-JD No.1 has already paid its share to the complainant, therefore, it should be exonerated from the further liability and bailable warrants be recalled. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon the authorities of High Court of Madras and High court of Punjab and Haryana titled as Avidayappan Chettiar Vs. Kanthimathi Ammal  decided on 28.07.1965, Dharampal and Ors. Vs. Ram, Jawari and Ors. Decided on 22.03.2010 respectively  and opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court in civil Appeal No.188 of 1955 titled as Topanmal Chhotamal Vs. Kundomal Gangaram and Ors. Decided on 08.09.1959.

8.      In the last mentioned authority (supra), it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the  question is whether in such circumstances an executing Court can go behind the decree & give the relief to the appellant which was expressly denied to him in the suit. The question so posed can only have one answer.  It is well-settled principle  that a Court executing a decree cannot go behind the decree: it  must take the decree as it stands, for the decree is binding and conclusive between the parties to the suit.  If the contention of the appellant were to be accepted, it would contravene the said principle; for, while the decree as construed by us, has directed that it should not be executed against the personal properties of the partners, the executing Court would be directing execution against the said partners.  While the decree excluded personal liability, the executing court would be imposing the same. This cannot obviously be done. 

9.      A careful perusal of the above mentioned authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the revisionist- J.D. No.1 reveals that these are not applicable and distinguishable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand as no recovery being made from the personal property of the opposite parties and if at all revisionist is having any grievance against the order dated 21.05.2019 order under execution regarding 50% liability of the revisionist-JD. No.1 then this issue can be raised  and clarified before the learned District Forum. More-so, no prejudice is going to be caused to the revisionist/O.P.No.1  if bailable warrants have been issued, for presence and payment.

10.    In the light of above discussion, foregoing revision petition is dismissed  being without merits.

11.    Copy of this order be sent to the District Forum.

 

22nd  January, 2020          Manjula,                                Harnam Singh Thakur                                                      Member                                 Judicial Member                            

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)