Delhi

North

CC/259/2017

RAJIV KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

GOIBIBO & ORS - Opp.Party(s)

01 Jul 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

Consumer Complaint No. 259/2017

In the matter of

Rajiv Kumar

Chamber No.470A

Western Wing, Tis Hazari

Delhi-110054                                                                                  ...Complainant

                  

Versus

Chief Executive Officer

Make my Trip (erstwhile Go Ibibo)

19^th Floor, DLF Epitome Building No.5, Tower-A

Gurgaon-122002

Also at

5^th floor, Good Earth City Centre

Sector-50, Gurgaon, Haryana                                                   …Opposite Party-1

                                                                         

Managing Director

Spice jet Ltd.

319, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV

Gurgaon, Haryana-122002                                                     …Opposite Party-2                                                                   

ORDER
01/07/2023

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member

Jurisdiction of this Commission has been invoked by Sh. Rajiv Kumar, the complainant, an advocate by profession against Go Ibibo, the service provider as OP-1 and Spice Jet Limited, the airlines carrier as OP-2.   

1. Briefly stated the facts of the present complaint are that on 24/06/2017, the complainant booked online tickets from Delhi to Pune vide                      PNR no.H6YEHC in SG-938 with travel date for 14/08/2017.  The total fare inclusive of taxes of Rs.8,931/- was paid through the credit card.  As the ticket was booked under the refundable option, the complainant was entitled to entire refund in case he cancelled the ticket. 
2. The complainant has stated that on 10/08/2017 the tickets were cancelled and OP-1 was duly informed for which the acknowledgment was issued by OP-1.  OP-1 processed the cancellation and informed the complainant that a total of Rs.927/- will be refunded after deduction, which was objected to by the complainant.
3. The complainant has alleged that almost 90% of the cost of the air ticket was deducted despite the fact that he had purchased tickets under refundable category.  Legal notice dated 16/08/2017, was issued to OPs which was neither replied nor complied. 
4. As per complainant, the act of deducting the 90% of the cost of tickets despite the facts that the complainant had booked the tickets under refundable option is unfair trade practice, which caused mental trauma to the complainant.  Hence, the present complaint with prayer for direction to OPs to refund Rs.8,004/- (Rs.8,931/- minus Rs.927/-) towards the cost of air tickets; to pay sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of mental pain, sufferings;  Rs.50,000/- as cost for inconvenience  caused to the complainant for running from pillar to post to get his money back; Rs.50,000/- as cost of unfair trade practice and Rs.50,000/- as cost of litigation. 
5. The complainant had annexed the flight tickets from New Delhi to Pune for outboard on 04/08/2017 as Annexure A, copy of acknowledgment received by the complainant as Annexure B, copy of legal notice along with postal receipt as Annexure C, refund details with the complaint.
6. Notice of the present complaint was issued to OP-1 and OP-2.Thereafter, Written Statement was filed on behalf of OP-1 and OP-2.
7. OP-1 has taken several preliminary objections such as the present complaint was not maintainable as the complainant had suppressed material facts; the complainant and OP-1 are bound by the terms and conditions agreed between them at the time of booking.  It was submitted that OP-1 just acted as a facilitator for booking airlines tickets.  The ticket was auto generated as per the entries fed by the complainant on the website of OP-1 and the same was not disputed.  It has also been submitted that there was no manual/human interference in case of on-line booking thus as per the details which were fed by the complainant at the time of booking, a refundable e-ticket was generated accordingly. Subsequently, any default of not refunding the amount towards cancelled ticket though being under refundable category was the sole prerogative of OP-2.  Therefore, they cannot be held liable. They have relied on section 230 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 which reads as follows:-

Section 230 of Indian Contract Act, 1872

“Agent cannot personally enforce, nor be bound by, contracts on behalf of principal.-in the absence of any contract to that effect, an agent cannot personally enforce contract entered into by him on behalf of his principal, nor is he personally bound by them. Presumption of contract to contrary.”

8. It has been further submitted that being a mere facilitator whatever amount they had received from OP-2 was transferred to the account of the complainant in same mode. In case there was a default at the end of OP-2 by not processing the full amount towards the ticket even under refundable category, then OP-1 could not be held liable. Thus, when OP-1 received the cancellation request, the request was processed and the tickets were cancelled and the refund of Rs.927/-, which was received from OP-2 was processed back to the account of the complainant. 
9. They have also stated that “refundable booking” does not imply that the full booking amount will be refundable upon cancellation, instead its signifies that post deduction of the applicable cancellation charges by the concerned service provider (OP-2) the balance amount would be processed back to the complainant and the same depends on the applicable policy of concerned airlines.  Thus, hefty deduction towards cancellation cannot be attributed to OP-1.  Hence, no deficiency in services could be alleged against them and as such the present complaint be rejected qua OP-1. Rest of the contents of the complaint have been denied.
10. OP-2 also filed their written statement, where they have admitted that the complainant had booked the ticket on 24/06/2017 with the date of travel as 14/08/2017 on SG-938 using the portal of OP-1.  It has been submitted that upon receipt of cancellation request on 10/08/2017 the tickets were cancelled and deducted cancellation charges of Rs.1,941/- per passenger.  They have further submitted that OP-2 had received Rs.8,181/- as the total cost of ticket and after deducting Rs.5,823/- (Rs.1,941/-x 3 passenger) remitted Rs.2,358/- to OP-1 on the same day.   
11. Another objection taken by OP-2 is that there is no privity of contract with the complainant, hence, there is no negligence and deficiency on their part.  They have relied upon the cancellation, changes and refund policy which are as under :-

Cancellation changes and refund

• For all domestic sectors any cancellation to the booking will attract a fee of Rs. 2250/- INR or base fare plus fuel surcharge per passenger per sector per change, whichever is lower.
• For all domestic sector any change to the booking will attract a fee of Rs. 2250/- INR per passenger per sector per change. If the same fare is not available at the time of change, the difference in fares will be applied in addition to the change fee plus changes to any applicable fees. All fees are subject to change without notice.
• In case of credit card payments, refund shall be made within seven (07) days of the cancellation to the account of credit card holder.
• In case of cash transactions, refund shall be immediately by Spice Jet office from where the ticket was purchased.
• In case of purchase of ticket through travel agent/portal, the refund shall be processed within 30 working days.

Thus, as per aforesaid terms and conditions and guidelines issued by DGCA, which are binding on the parties are to be complied mandatorily by airlines, in the present case OP-2 had deducted a lesser amount towards cancellation of ticket. They have also submitted that it was a case of promotional fare/booking where the entire amount is forfeited if the ticket is cancelled. The cancellation of the ticket was subject to the condition mentioned in the terms of carriage.They have also objected to the territorial jurisdiction of this commission to entertain the present complaint.Rest of the content of the complaint have been denied. The terms of carriage have been annexed as Annexure R-1 with their written statement.

12. Rejoinder to the written statement was filed by the complainant where, it has been stated that as OP-1 and OP-2 share master/principal and agent relationship, thus, are either jointly or severely liable.  It has been submitted that OP-1 provides services to OP-2 in lieu of commission. Further, as per OP-2 refund of Rs.2,358/- was remitted to OP-1, after necessary deduction but the complainant only received Rs.927/- thus,OP-1 has concealed the material fact. A far as the objection pertaining to the territorial jurisdiction raised by OP-2 was concerned the complainant has stated that the ticket was booked online from his office at Tis Hazari, North Delhi.  The complainant has also filed the domestic flight booking terms pertaining to OP-1.
13. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed on behalf of the parties.  The complainant had got himself examined and has deposed on oath the contents of the complaint. He has got exhibited the copy of the air ticket as Ex.A, copy of the acknowledgement of the cancellation as Ex.B, copy of legal notice along with postal receipt as Ex.C
14. Sh. Varun Chopra, the authorised officer was examined on behalf of OP-1.  He has also reiterated the contents of the written statement and has got exhibited the copy of the Board Resolution dated 10/07/2017 as  Ex.OPW1/A and the terms and conditions as applicable and agreed between the parties as Ex.OPW1/B.
15. However, no evidence by way of affidavit was filed by OP-2.
16. We have heard the arguments on behalf of Ld. Advocate for Complainant & Ld. Advocate for OP-1 and Authorised Representative for OP-2. We have also perused the material placed on record. The Complainant is aggrieved by non-receipt of complete refund of Rs.8,931/- paid by him on account of booking air tickets, despite the fact that the said tickets were booked under refundable category. The Complainant has alleged that OP-2 deducted Rs.8,004/- and remitted only Rs.927/- as refund. To decide upon the dispute, it is important to look at the Payment Invoice dated 24/06/2017 which is Ex.A. It is seen “the convenience fee is Rs.750/- and cancellation protection premium is Rs.0 (Rupees Zero)” thus, it shows that the Complainant had not paid for the cancellation protection. Even if presuming, the tickets purchased by the Complainant were refundable then, the refund was subject to the terms & conditions of OP-1 and OP-2.
17. As per the terms of Carriage of OP-2, upon cancellation of the booking, a fee of Rs.2,250/- INR or base fare plus fuel surcharge per person per change, whichever was lower was to be deducted. Simultaneously, as per the Payment Invoice Ex.A, reflects that the basic plus fuel charge is Rs.1,849/-. So, as per their own terms & conditions OP-2 should have deducted Rs.1,849/- being the lower cancellation fee.

Complainant has also relied upon the domestic flight booking terms and conditions of GoIbibo as per the cancellation policy under Clause GoIbibo cancellation chargers it has been written that in addition to airlines charges, GoIbibo will charge Rs.300/- per passenger per sector for  each cancellation.

 

 

As per cancel ticket voucher the total amount paid by the Complainant per passenger is Rs.2,977/- (Rs.1,849 + Rs.878 + Rs.250), where Rs.250/- is the convenience fee charged by OP-1 per passenger. Under the head GoIbibo charges including GST ,a lump sum figure of Rs.550/- has been deducted, which implies that OP-1 has charged Rs.250/- on account of convenience fees which is non-refundable and Rs.300/- on account of cancellation charges as per terms and conditions. Since, there are three passengers thus, OP-1 has rightly deducted Rs.550/- as per terms and conditions. Therefore, OP-1 and OP-2 have acted in accordance with the terms and conditions. It is settled principle of law that all the parties to the contract are bound by terms and conditions. In the present case the OPs as per terms and conditions could deduct/levy cancellation charges, which they have rightly done.   

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present complaint we do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP-1 and OP-2. Hence, the present complaint is dismissed being devoid of merits without orders to cost.

Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules. Order be also uploaded on the website.  Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

(Harpreet Kaur Charya) Member

(Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar) President