Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/639/2021

Amit Kumar Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indigo Airlines - Opp.Party(s)

Ajay Sharma

02 May 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/639/2021
Date of Institution	:	22/09/2021
Date of Decision	:	02/05/2024

1. Amit Kumar Sharma S/o Sh.Surinder Kumar, Currently Resident of H.No.284/2, Sector 44-A Chandigarh.

2nd Address Chamber No.180 FF District court Complex Sector 43 Chandigarh.

2. Jagdeep Singh S/o Mukhtiar Singh, Village Ibrahimpura, SAS Nagar (Mohali) Punjab 140507.
3. Mahesh S/o Jai Pal Singh, # 2479 Sector 28-C, Chandigarh.
4. Swaranjeet Singh S/o Harbans Singh, 328, Chak Fateh Singhwala, Bhatinda Punjab 151101.
5. Tikaram Bhusal S/o Dharma Raj Bhusal, #243, Sector 16-A, Chandigarh 160015.

… Complainants

V E R S U S

1. Indigo Airlines Through its authorized Signatory/ representative having its registered office at Upper Ground Floor, Thapar House, Gate No.2, Western Wing, 124 Janpath, New Delhi-110001.

Corporate Office Address :- Level 1, Tower C, Global Business Park, Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon 122 002, Haryana.

2. Ease my trip Through its authorized Signatory/representative having its Official Franchise at First Floor S.C.O. 169, 170, Madhya Marg, Near Sindhi Sweets, Sector 8C, Chandigarh. 160018.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Ajay Kumar Sharma, Advocate for complainants
	:	Sh. Amandeep Singh, Advocate for OP-1
	:	Ms. Niharika Goel, Advocate Proxy for Sh. Mohit Garg, Advocate for OP-2

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Amit Kumar Sharma and others, complainants against the aforesaid opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations, as projected in the consumer complaint, that on 25.1.2020, complainant No.1 had booked 10 flight tickets (round trip) for himself and his associates/other complainants for travelling from Delhi to Goa on 11.4.2020 and return to Delhi on 14.4.2020, from the website of OP-2 and the confirmation receipt is Annexure C-1.  All the transaction for booking the air tickets was done by complainant No.1 by making online payment of ₹42,690/- from his bank account and air tickets were received on his registered email (Annexure C-2).   On 2.2.2021, i.e. before journey date, complainant No.1 received an email (Annexure C-3) from Goindigo/OP-1 stating that in support of DGCA measures to eradicate COVID-19, all Indigo flights are suspended till 14.4.2020 and it was suggested that all bookings have been cancelled and protected the bookings in the form of credit shell valid for one year from the date of issuance of letter. Complainant No.1 approached the website of OPs several times and tried to get bookings as the amount was preserved under the credit shell and not redeemable, but, his request was declined. Thereafter complainant No.1 telephonically contacted the OPs at helpline number and enquired about credit shell, but, with no result.  In this manner, as OPs have failed to refund the booking amount to complainant No.1, the said act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their separate written versions.
3. OP-1 in its written version, inter alia, took preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action, concealment of facts and jurisdiction.  However, it is admitted that the complainants, through OP-2, got the air tickets booked from the answering OP and due to the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, the flights were cancelled and on 1.4.2020 the complainants’ booking amount was kept in the form of credit shell. In June 2020, when the complainants contacted the customer relations team of answering OP and sought refund of the booking amount, answering OP refunded the entire amount of ₹40,440/- on 14.6.2020 and since the since the grievance of the complainants in the present case is that they have not received the said amount till date, it is the sole liability of the third party agent/ETP (Easy Trip Planner Private Limited) from whom the aforesaid amount was received by the answering OP for booking the tickets.  Moreover, as answering OP had already processed the refund on 14.6.2020 itself and the amount remained available with OP-2/ETP, the answering OP is not liable to pay anything to the complainants. Moreover, complainants have no cause of action against the answering OP. On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainants is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
4. OP-2 in its written version, inter alia, took preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action, concealment of facts and also that the answering OP is only a facilitator to provide the services as service provider and the consumer complaint is not maintainable against the answering OP. Moreover, answering OP is intermediary covered under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000.  However, it is admitted that the answering OP received refund request from the complainant on its self-serving portal on 6.11.2021 (Annexure 2) and subsequently on 11.11.2021 (Annexure 3), refund was processed in the EMT wallet.  Moreover, the answering OP has refunded the whole amount without making any deduction and the consumer complaint of the complainant is not maintainable.  On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainants is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
5. In rejoinder to the written version of OP-2, complainants re-asserted the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully, including written arguments.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant No.1 had booked 10 air tickets from Delhi to Goa and return, for the relevant date, time and place, by making payment from his account, and the said booking was cancelled due to outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic and on the request of complainant No.1, OP-1/airline has refunded the amount in the account of OP-2 as the said ticket were got booked through OP-2, and the payment was also made to OP-2 on 14.6.2020, as is also evident from Annexure R-5, and thereafter when complainant No.1 again approached OP-1 for refund of the amount, OP-1 contacted OP-2 and OP-2, who had already received the said amount from OP-1 on 14.6.2020 and thereafter OP-2 has refunded the said amount in the account of complainant No.1 on 8.10.2022, as is also evident from Annexure 4, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the delay in refunding the aforesaid amount to the complainants amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and the complainants are entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainants, or if the complainants have no cause of action against the OPs and the consumer complaint, being false and frivolous, is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OPs. 
   2. As it is an admitted case of the parties that the tickets were booked by complainant No.1 through OP-2/EMT (Ease My Trip) on payment of ₹42,690/- and the said amount was transferred by OP-2 in the account of OP-1 and further when it stands proved on record that, in fact, OP-1 has immediately refunded the amount of ₹40,440/- in the account of OP-2 on 14.6.2020 on receiving request of complainant No.1 for refund of the said amount, as is also evident from Annexure R-6, it is clear that the delay, if any, in refund of the aforesaid amount to complainant No.1 is on the part of OP-2 and not on the part of OP-1.
   3. As per defence of OP-2, request for refund was received by it from complainants on 6.11.2021 and there is no delay in refund on its part.  However, this defence of OP-2 stands falsified from Annexure 4 itself, having been relied upon by OP-2, which clearly indicates that, in fact, OP-2 has refunded the amount in the EMT wallet on 11.11.2021 without any reason instead of directly transferring the same in the account of complainant No.1 who finally got the same manually only on 8.10.2022.
   4. Thus, when it has come on record that OP-2 has received the aforesaid amount from OP-1 on 14.6.2020 and firstly kept the said amount with it without any reason and thereafter had transferred the same in EMT wallet after a long time i.e. upto 8.10.2022, which otherwise was the bounden duty of OP-2 to refund the same to complainant No.1 immediately upon receipt of the same from OP-1, it is safe to hold that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP-2, especially when OP-2 was required to refund the same directly to the account of complainant No.1 from whom it had received the amount and not to keep the same in the EMT wallet. 
   5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is safe to hold that the complainants have successfully proved the cause of action set up in the consumer complaint against OP-2 and the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed against it. 
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OP-2 is directed as under :-

1. to pay interest @ 9% per annum to complainant No.1 on the already refunded amount w.e.f. 14.6.2020 to 8.10.2022.
2. to pay ₹10,000/- to complainant No.1 as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to complainant No.1 as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by OP-2 within forty five days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the payable amounts, mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. Since no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice has been proved against OP-1, the consumer complaint against it stands dismissed with no order as to costs. 
7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
8. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

02/05/2024 hg	Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
	Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member
	Sd/- [Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member