Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/195

Harpal Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Goibibo - Opp.Party(s)

Atul Sood

02 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 195 dated 21.09.2020.                                                        Date of decision: 02.08.2022.

 

Harpal Kaur aged 57 years wife of Harminder Singh, Resident of 398-L, Model Town, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                                       ..…Complainant 

•  

1. Goibibo,

Corporate Office:- 5^th Floor, Good Earth City Center, Sector 50, Gurgaon-122018, through its Director, Manager, Partner, Authorized signatory etc.

GO-MMT Corporation HQs, Epitome Building No.5, 19^th Floor, Tower A, B & C, Cyber City, DLF Phase 2, Gurgaon, Haryana (122002)

 

Goibibo-Make My Trip (GO-MMT Group), Technology Center, Divyashree, 77, HAL Airport Rd, Yamlur, Bangalore, Karnataka, 560037, IN.

2. Air India,

Air India Ltd., Airlines House, 113, Gurdwara Rakabganj Road, New Delhi-01, through its Director, Manager, Partner, Authorized signatory etc. …..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection    Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         None.

For OP1                         :         Sh. Manish Mann, Advocate.

For OP2                         :         Exparte.

 

 

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                In nutshell, the case of the complainant is that on 04.10.2019, the complainant booked air ticket of airlines of OP2 through OP1 for a flight from New Delhi to Canada on 16.12.2019 with return from Canada to New Delhi on 17.03.2020. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.55,340/-. The said amount was paid by the complainant through his debit card of Kotak Mahindra Bank.

2.                It is further alleged that on 16.12.2019, the complainant went to Canada through the said ticket and stayed there till 15.03.2020. On 15.03.2020, the complainant received a mail from OP2 for the cancellation of the flight. The complainant contacted the helpline number of the OPs but no response was given by OPs. In compelling circumstances, the complainant had to book another ticket for India through some other airline for which she spent an amount of Rs.40,321/-. After arrival in India, the complainant contacted the OPs and requested for refund of the amount but no refund was issued. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and also caused great mental tension and monetary loss to the complainant who had to book another flight by spending Rs.40,321/-. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be made to refund the half amount of the ticket amounting to Rs.28,000/- along with interest and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and further the OPs be made to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.40,321/- spent on her return journey ticket.

3.                Upon notice, OP2 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte.

4.                The complaint has, however, been resisted by OP1. In the written statement filed on behalf of the OP1, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is false and frivolous and is nothing but an abuse of process of law. The complainant has also suppressed the material facts while filling the complaint. According to OP1, it acts only as facilitator for booking the air tickets and hotel bookings on behalf of its customers and the parties are governed by user’s agreement applicable to the person intending to purchase any product or service through OP1. It has been admitted that the complainant booked ticket from New Delhi to Frankfurt via Lufthansa Airlines dated 16.12.2019 and Frankfurt-Toronto via Lufthansa Airlines on 16.12.2019 with return journey from Toronto-Frankfurt via Air Canada on 16.03.2020 and Frankfurt-New Delhi via Air India on 18.03.2020. It has further been pleaded that the complainant was governed by the cancellation and refund policy  of the concerned airlines and the air tickets available through websites are subject to terms and conditions of the concerned airlines. OP1 being a facilitator between the concerned service provider and the intended traveler was under obligation to provide confirmed booking/tickets to its customers. Once the confirmed ticket is issued to the customer, OP1 is discharged from its obligations and liabilities qua the said bookings. Moreover, due to grave and sudden outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic across the world, first measure governments of all countries adopted to stop the spread of the virus was stopping air travel. In the instant case also, the confirmed flight bookings were not honoured by the airlines due to outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic and the outbreak of the pandemic was declared as force majeure  even by the Ministry of Finance in the month of February 2020 itself. Thus, it cannot be said to be a case of deficiency of service. Moreover, mo cause of action has arisen to the complainant as against OP1. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

5.                The complainant filed replication to the written statement filed by OP1 reiterating the averments made in the complaint controverting those made in the written statement.

6.                In evidence, the complainant submitted her affidavit along with documents Ex C1 to Ex. C12 and closed the evidence.

7.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP1 tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. S. Suresh, authorized representative of OP1 along with documents Ex. RW1 to Ex. RW9 and closed the evidence.

8.                The complainant in this case has not been appearing since 08.06.2022. We have, however, gone through the record and heard arguments on behalf of the counsel for OP1. We proceed to decide the case on merits.

9.                It is not disputed that the complainant through OP1 booked air ticket from Delhi to Toronto, Canada  via Frankfurt which was to depart from Delhi on 16.12.2019 and the return journey was on 16.03.2020 from Toronto-Canada via Frankfurt to arrive at New Delhi on 18.03.2020. It is not disputed that the return flight scheduled for 16.03.2020 from Toronto was cancelled by OP2. In the email Ex. C4, OP2 has admitted that they sincerely regret the inconvenience caused. From whatever has been stated in email Ex. C4, it transpires that the flight was cancelled due to COVID-19 pandemic. In the email Ex. C4, OP2 has further stated that the refund process would take 8-10 working days or due to prevalent conditions, it might take some more time. In our considered view, even if the flight had been cancelled  due to reasons beyond control of OP2 or due to spread of COVID-19 pandemic, OP2 was under an obligation to refund at least half of the amount of the ticket pertaining to return journey. The cost of return journey ticket was Rs.55,340/- meaning thereby the half cost of the return journey would have been Rs.27,670/-. Therefore, OP2 is under an obligation to refund the amount of Rs.27,670/- to the complainant. Since the refund was not issued in time with the result that the complainant had to knock at the door of this Commission to get the refund, in our considered view, OP2 should be held liable to pay a composite cost o Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

10.              As far as OP1 is concerned, it was only a facilitator between the complainant and OP2 and only the tickets were booked through it. OP1 cannot be held responsible or liable in any manner if the return flight was subsequently cancelled by OP2 or refund was not made by it. Therefore, no case of deficiency of service on behalf of OP2 is made out.

11.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to OP2 to refund the amount of Rs.27,670/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. OP2 is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as composite cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The complaint as against OP1 is, however, dismissed. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

12.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:02.08.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Harpal Kaur Vs Goibibo                                                 CC/20/195 

Present:       None for the complainant.

                   Sh. Manish Mann, Advocate for OP1.

                   OP2 exparte.

 

                   None turned up for the complainant today also. None has been appearing on behalf of the complainant in this case since 08.06.2022

                   Arguments on behalf of the counsel for OP1 heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to OP2 to refund the amount of Rs.27,670/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. OP2 is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as composite cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The complaint as against OP1 is, however, dismissed. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:02.08.2022.

Gobind Ram.