Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/347/2018

Abhijeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Goibibo - Opp.Party(s)

Sanpreet Sandhu

30 Jul 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/347/2018
Date of Institution	:	20/07/2018
Date of Decision	:	30/07/2019

                                                                       

Abhijeet Singh son of Surinder Pal Singh minor through Guardian Balwinder Kaur wife of Jaswinder Singh, Resident of House No.1236, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh.

....Complainant

V E R S U S

 

[1]     Go Ibibo, 19^th Floor, DLF Epitome Building No.5, Tower-A, DLF Cyber City, Phase-III, Sector 25, Gurugram-122 002 (India).

 

[2]     United Airlines, 2^nd Floor, Tower-C, Cyber Green, DLF Phase-3, Gurgaon – 122002, through its Chief Managing Director.

…… Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	SH.RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Mandeep Nehra, Vice Counsel for Sh.Sanpreet Sandhu, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Varun Sharma, Vice Counsel for Sh.Satpal Dhamija, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1.
	:	Sh.Jagtar Singh, Counsel for Opposite Party No.2.

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

1.         Abhijeet Singh, the Complainant has preferred this Consumer Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Goibibo and Another (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that he planned to visit Columbus on 24.08.2017 so approached Opposite Party No.1 for booking tickets and booked the online tickets vide booking ID. AMDZYSOZX from Chandigarh through Opposite Party No.1 for a sum of Rs.91,676/-.  Online confirmation of tickets was received. On the date of journey i.e. 24.08.2017, the Complainant reported in time to board the flight (UA8331) at Delhi Airport, but he was shocked to learn that there was no such flight and accordingly, had to arrange new tickets of another flight. Eventually, the Complainant requested the Opposite Parties to refund the amount paid and even on 14.09.2017 sent relevant details to process the refund, but to no avail. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act and conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice, the Complainant have preferred the present Complaint.     
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         Opposite Party No.1 contested the Complaint and filed its written statement, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that the flight booked by the Complainant was very much operational. The Complainant reached airport and reported to the check-in counter of the Airline. It was because of the fact that the Complainant was not having valid transit visa in place, he was denied boarding by the Airline. Thus there was no fault of the answering Opposite Party in the whole issue in hand. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         Opposite Party No.2 filed its separate reply, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that the Complainant approached the office of Opposite Party No.1 with regard to refund of the money who have booked the tickets of the Complainant and the answering Opposite Party has no role with regard to refund the money to the Complainant. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5.         The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Party No.1.
6.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
7.         We have gone through the entire evidence and heard the arguments addressed by the Learned Counsel for the Parties.
8.         The Complainant, admittedly, booked the flight tickets online through Opposite Party No.1 for travel from Delhi to Toronto and from Toronto to Columbus. It has come on record that the Complainant did not have valid transit visa for Toronto, Canada. It is important to note that the Complainant should have a valid transit visa while taking the flight to Columbus via Toronto, Canada. The Complainant has failed to adduce any documentary evidence to show that he was having a valid transit visa while taking the flight. To cap it all, the e-ticket issued by the Opposite Party No.1 to the Complainant also mentions that a customer should arrange for requisite visa as per their travel plan. Hence, it is legitimately proved that the Complainant is himself responsible for the entire mess. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the Opposite Parties have not committed any negligence nor they were deficient in rendering proper services to the Complainant in any manner whatsoever. Thus, we find that the whole gamut of facts and circumstances leans towards the side of the Opposite Parties. The case is lame of strength and therefore, liable to be dismissed.
9.         For the reasons recorded above, we do not find even a shred of evidence to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties. Consequently, the Consumer Complaint fails and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced                                     

30.07.2019

                                 Sd/-

(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

“Dutt”