Mr.H.K.Bhaise, Hon’ble Member
1) The complainant booked the flight ticket with GO Airlines (India) Limited on 7th July, 2010 by Flight No.G8-152, paid amount of Rs.10,003/- through Devang Desai’s credit card for Mumbai to Srinagar, PNR No.AOHPHF. The complainant due to some personal difficulty cancel the ticket and demanded refund of money. But, O.P.’s representative told on telephone as per the GO Airlines (India) Limited policy amount is not refundable but given the voucher and pin number for the future flight booking and allotted Rs.9,247/- to the complainant
2) The complainant requested to O.P. to extend of the voucher validity but the O.P.’s representative told the complainant “If you want to continue this voucher validity you have to book some flight ticket”. Then the complainant booked another flight No.G8-604 dated 5th July, 2011, Mumbai to Srinagar PNR No.8DEIXD. The complainant has to go south tour for Kanyakumari, Kolkata but same was not available with G8-141.
3) The complainant called up the refund amount through email on 12th June, 2012, 21st June, 2012, 22nd June, 2012 and 23rd June, 2012 to the O.P and O.P.’s representative told that the petitioner’s voucher is misused by Shri Sudhir Jagtap who booked flight No.G8-141 on 10th June, 2012 Mumbai to Chandigarh and later on Shri Jagtap cancel the same and another person misused by passenger Mr.Kalpesh Shah and Ms.Dipti Modi who booked Flight No.G8-152 on the complainant’s voucher on 23rd June, 06.00 p.m. Mumbai to Delhi.
4) The complainant lodged the complaint to the police station on 25th June, 2012 for investigation but the investigation not accomplished till date and the complainant sent notice on 27th June, 2012 to the O.P. but the O.P. not replied till date.
5) The complainant therefore prays to admit the complaint, directing the O.P. to pay the flight ticket amount of Rs.9,247/- with Rs.5 Lakhs for mental harassment for the deficiency in service from the O.P. and another Rs.10,000/- towards the legal proceeding charges.
6) The O.P. denies each and every allegation made and contention raised in the complaint. The O.P. states that the present complaint suffers from non joinder of necessary parties and should be dismissed on this ground alone. The complainant has not brought the true and complete facts before the Forum. There is no default on the part of the O.P. As per the process followed by complainant, the O.P. has done all the cancellations and bookings. The O.P. further states that it is duty of passenger to safeguard himself from cyber fraud and must be more prudent while using any cybercafé or any unprotected internet service provider. The complainant is neither prudent in utilizing the voucher within stipulated time period nor protected the pin numbers provided to him. The O.P. can not be held liable for the fault of the complainant.
7) There is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. as once the voucher id and pin number are provided to any passenger the entire onus of protecting the voucher id and pin number lies with the passenger to whom the details are provided and O.P. can not be held liable if the passenger failed to protect the voucher confidential details.
8) It is not disputed that the complainant booked tickets on 7th July, 2010, however the opposite party is not aware of the relations that are shared between the complainant and Mr.Devang Desai. The O.P. states that from the booking history maintained by the O.P., it is clear that the complainant while booking his tickets has given the email address of Mr.Devang Desai, similarly the payments were made via credit card of Mr.Devang Desai. The O.P. therefore states that in the present case, without admitting any contents of the complaint even for the sake of argument it is presumed that if any loss has happened, it has been happened to Mr.Devang Desai and not the present complainant and therefore Mr.Devand Desai is the person who may raise the grievance if any and not the present complainant. Moreover, the complainant has not filed any power of attorney on behalf of Mr.Devand Desai. Hence, this complaint is not maintainable on the ground of non joining of requisite party. The O.P. stats that it is also true that later on the complainant chose not to travel by the flight booked by him and demanded the refund of his money. The O.P. state that after cancellation, the complainant was allowed Voucher No.ST 3838 of an amount of Rs.9,253/- after deducting Rs.750/- as cancellation charges from the original booking amount. Copy of the said cancelled ticket along with the voucher which is generated in the system. The O.P. further states that the voucher so provided to the complainant was valid for one year from date of issuance. As per the terms and conditions, the passenger either had to use the voucher within 12 months. If the voucher is not utilized within the stipulated period then the voucher will expire and money is forfeited.
9) The O.P. states that the complainant once again booked ticket for journey dated 5th July, 2011 from Mumbai to Srinagar which was subsequently cancelled by the complainant for which he was once again provided with new Voucher No.Y9ZTHD of an amount of Rs.8,503/- after deducting Rs.750/- as cancellation charges from the booking amount of Rs.9,253/-.
10) The O.P. state that on 6th June, 2012, the O.P. received booking request from passenger named one Mr.Sudhir Jagtap for Mumbai-Chandigarh journey dated 10th June, 2012. While booking, he provided the Voucher No.Y9ZTHD system generated copy of the said voucher and accordingly the O.P. issued the ticket to Shri Sudhir Jagtap. The O.P. states that Shri Sudhir Jagtap cancelled the tickets and Voucher No.8KPTD9 was generated. The O.P. states that while booking tickets, Shri Sudhir Jagtap had given his contact No.8753692315 which is recorded in O.P.’s system. The said Shri Jagtap instead of utilizing voucher for self travel, he further transferred the same to another passenger one Shri Kalpesh Shah, who further utilized it for his travel to Mumbai-Delhi dated 23rd June, 2012 for which fare was Rs.16,012/- out of which Rs.8,368/- were paid through the voucher originally issued to the complainant. Mr.Kalpesh while booking ticket gave his contact No.9745544585 and system generated print out of the said.
11) The O.P. further states that when the vouchers are allotted to any person, the voucher number and PIN is also given to that person only. In the present case, the voucher were allotted to the complainant and only the complainant knew the voucher number and the PIN that was allotted to him and it was the duty of the complainant to keep the same confidential and not to disclose the same to any third party/person. The complainant has himself transferred the voucher to Shri Sudhir Jagtap for monetary benefit who later transferred the same to Mr.Kalpesh Shah. The O.P. states that there is no fault on the part of it. In fact, the O.P. has provided all the available details from its side to help the complainant in recovering his money either from Shri Sudhir Jagtap or Shri Kalpesh Shah and Ms.Dipti Shah. The O.P. states that the vouchers have been misused because of the complainant’s own mistake or carelessness or other benefit which can be made out from the complaint filed by the complainant before the concerned police authorities. The O.P. therefore states that it can not be held responsible for the mistake of the complainant. The O.P. has already provided services of the worth of the voucher and hence the O.P. should not be made to pay anything more as is not liable for any compensation as claimed by the complainant.
12) The O.P. further states that even the emails that complainant was alleged to have written to the O.P. are in fact written on wrong email address and hence no replies to all the said emails could ever had been made by the O.P. The O.P. states that as per the process of cancellation of ticket, voucher number and PIN number is given which only the passenger is aware of and which can be utilized by him for use of voucher in future. Further if he wants to transfer the tickets, it can be done by merely handing over the voucher number and PIN to other passenger.
13) The O.P. states that the complainant has already approached the correct Forum being the local police station as this case does not falls under the scope and jurisdiction of this Consumer Forum. Moreover, the outcome of the investigation is not disclosed by the complainant. The O.P. states that this complaint may be a case of cheating and cyber crime done upon the complainant and for which the police authorities need to do investigation. The O.P. therefore pray that the present complaint filed by the complainant be dismissed with costs. The O.P. states that the entire claim of the complainant is baseless and this party is not liable for any losses if any suffered by the complainant as the same was due to complainant’s own default. It is therefore prayed that complaint of the complainant be dismissed with costs in favour of the O.P.
14) The complainant and the O.P. both have filed their affidavit of evidence.
15) After hearing the complainant and after going through the record, following points arise for our consideration
POINTS
Sr. No. | Points | Findings |
1) | Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. ? | No |
2) | Whether the complainant is entitled for refund from the O.P. ? | No |
3) | What order ? | As per final order |
REASONS
16) As to Point No.1 & 2 :- It is not disputed that the complainant had booked tickets on 7th July, 2010. It is also clear that the complainant while booking his tickets has given the email address of Mr.Devang Desai. It is also true that later on the complainant chose not to travel by flight booked by him and demanded the refund of his money. After cancellation, the complainant was allotted Voucher No.ST 8838 of an amount of Rs.9,253/- after deducting that cancellation charges along with voucher which was generated and valid for one year from the date of issuance. It is also admitted by both the parties that complainant once again booked ticket for journey dated 5th July, 2011 from Mumbai to Srinagar which was also subsequently cancelled and once again provided with new voucher No.Y92THD was again used by Shri Sudhir Jagtap for Mumbai Chandigarh journey dated 10th June, 2012. Shri Sudhir Jagtap also cancelled the tickets and Voucher No.8KPT09 was generated which was transferred to one Shri Kalpesh Shah who utilized the same for his travel from Mumbai-Delhi dated 20th June, 2012.
17) As all refunds and vouchers are regularly paid by the O.P. as per their policy and finally the last voucher and refund was utilized by the person namely Kalpesh Shah, the O.P. is not liable/responsible for any refund of money.
18) Secondly, as per the system generated by the O.P., the voucher are allotted to the person, the voucher number and PIN is also given to that person only. It can not be utilized unless and until the voucher number and PIN is given or disclosed by the person to any third person. Therefore, there is no fault of the O.P. Therefore the O.P. is not responsible for any misuse. Even if voucher and PIN is misused it may be due to complainant’s own mistake or carelessness.
19) The O.P. has taken care of all the bookings, cancellation, voucher allotment and refund in lieu of cancellation and provided all the available details from their side to help the complainant and therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. In fact, the complainant while booking the ticket for first time on 7th July, 2010 has given the email address of Mr.Devang Desai. Similarly, all payments were made via credit card of Mr.Devang Desai. As such, if any loss has happened, it has been happened to Mr.Devand Desai and not to the present complainant. The O.P. is not aware of the relation that are showed between the complainant and Mr.Devang Desai. Therefore, Mr.Devang Desai is the person who may have raise the grievance if any and not the present complainant. Moreover, Mr.Devang Desai has not given any power of attorney to the present complainant. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable.
20) All further cancellations and voucher numbers and PIN were allotted to persons in whose name ticket was issued. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.
21) The complainant has lodged the complaint with Commissioner of Police, Mumbai. In his complaint also he has mentioned that he lodged the complaint against Shri Sudhir Jagtap and Mr.Kamlesh Shah for misuse of his ticket and voucher number and PIN. He himself has suggested that he is using cyber café at Dahisar and from their, the culprit might have stolen his voucher number and PIN. Therefore, the complainant is not sure how the misuse of his voucher number and PIN has been done. It is clear that no third person can use his voucher number and PIN unless it is somehow disclosed by the complainant. Therefore, in the process, the O.P. can not be blamed. Thus, there is no deficiency in service and the complainant is not entitled for any refund of money or any compensation from the O.P. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
1) Complaints stands dismissed.
2) Parties are left to bear their own costs.
3) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced
Dated 3rd March, 2014
