Adv. for the Complainant- Self.

Adv. for the O.Ps             - Sri B.N.Mishra.

                                                                          Date of filing of the case-22.06.2017

                                                                          Date of order                  - 03.05.2018

ORDER.

Sri A.K.Purohit, President.

            The case of the complainant is that, he had booked two flight tickets from Bhubaneswar to New Delhi for dated 16.05.2017 in the name of Sandipan Mishra and Sreyasee Mishra and paid Rs 5,888/-. After 15 minutes of this booking the complainant booked returned tickets from New Delhi to Bhubaneswar for the dt.30.05.2017 and paid Rs 6,416/- . This booking of tickets was through on-line process and the amount paid is through credit card of the complainant. The complainant alleges that, although he had booked both the tickets for dt.16.05.2017 and 30.05.2017, on the same date, he had received SMS for dt.30.05.2017 and hence he enquired about the ticket dt.16.05.2017 and  came to know that, his ticket from Bhubaneswar to New Delhi was rescheduled as New Delhi to Bhubaneswar without the knowledge of the complainant, which is not a fair practice. Finding no other alternative the complainant again booked tickets from Bhubaneswar to New Delhi for dated 21.05.2017.Hence the complainant has preferred this case claiming refund of Rs 6,416/- and for compensation and cost.

2.         The O.P contested the case by filing written version. Besides preliminary objections the O.P submitted that, the complainant on dt.23.04.2017 booked two air tickets on board Indigo flight No.6E-5405 for travel from Bhubaneswar to New Delhi. The complainant was charged an amount of Rs 6,416/- for the same. Subsequently on the same date complainant cancelled the said booking and booked two fresh air tickets on board Indigo  flight No.6E-887 for two passengers from New Delhi to Bhubaneswar. The complainant was charged an amount of Rs 5,888/- for the same although the ticket amount was Rs 7,578/- ,because the residual booking amount from his original booking amount was applied towards his fresh booking. The O.P denied all the allegations of the complainant and claims no deficiency in service on their part.

3.             Heard both the parties. Perused the material available on record. Before going into the merit of the case, the learned advocate for the O.Ps raised preliminary objection and submitted that, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction, secondly this form has no jurisdiction to decide the matter as per the terms and conditions between the parties and thirdly non-joinder of interglobe aviation Ltd, as a party.

4.             Coming to the first point of preliminary objection, it is seen that, the complainant had booked his tickets through online process at Balangir and paid the fare through his credit card at Balangir. Therefore part of cause of action arosed at Bolangir. Hence this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to decide this consumer complaint. Coming to the next point, the learned advocate for the O.Ps relying on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2011) 7 S.C.C. 463 Interglobe Aviation Ltd.-versus- N.Satchidanand , submitted that ,the complainant is supposed to know the contractual agreement regarding the jurisdiction of the forum and should have preferred this case before a forum having jurisdiction as per the terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. In the said decision in para-22, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “As per the pr4incple laid down in A.B.C.Laminart , any clause which ousts the jurisdiction of all courts having jurisdiction and conferring jurisdiction on a court not otherwise having jurisdiction would be invalid. It is now well settled that the parties cannot by agreement confer jurisdiction on a court which does not have jurisdiction and that only where two or more courts have the jurisdiction to try a suit or proceeding, an agreement that the disputes shall be tried in one of such courts is not contrary to public policy. The ouster of jurisdiction of some courts is permissible so long as the court on which exclusive jurisdiction is conferred had jurisdiction. If the clause had been made to apply only where a part of cause of action accrued in Delhi, it would have been valid  But as the clause provides that irrespective of the place of cause of action, only courts at Delhi would have jurisdiction, the said clause is invalid in law, having regard to the principle laid down in A.B.C, Laminart. The fact that in this case, the place of embarkation happened to be Delhi, would not validate a clause, which is invalid.”. It is now well settled that the parties cannot by agreement confer jurisdiction on a court which does not have jurisdiction and that only where two or more courts have the jurisdiction to try a suit or proceeding an agreement that the disputes shall be tried in one of such courts is not contrary to public policy. Therefore the position of law is that, an agreement between the parties cannot confer jurisdiction on a court and it is the statute who will confer jurisdiction on the court. In the present case, the dispute is relating to reschedule of the tickets booked by the complainant through online process at Balangir. The case is not related to boarding or arrival at Bhubaneswar or at Delhi. Hence no cause of action or part of  cause of action arose at Delhi.. Under these circumstances of the present case and in reference to the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,  this forum has jurisdiction to decide the case where the cause of action arose.So far the last point is concerned the interglobe Aviation Ltd. Has appeared and contested the case on behalf of the O.Ps and hence the case is not bad for non-joinder of interglobe Aviation.

5.              Coming to the merit of the case, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had booked tickets in his name and in the name of his wife Sreysee Mishra on dt. 23.04.2017 through the Web portal of the O.P w.w.w.goindo.in. The tickets are from Bhubaneswar to New Delhi for  dt. 16.05.2017 and from New Delhi to Bhubaneswar for dt.30.05.22017. It is also an admitted fact that  the complainant had booked fresh ticket from Bhubaneswar to New Delhi for dt.21.05.2017. It is the case of the complainant that, he had not received any intimation for the tickets dt.16.05.2017 and hence he was forced to book fresh tickets from Bhubaneswar to New Delhi for dt.21.05.2017 which is disputed by the O.Ps and it is the submission of the O.Ps that, on the request of the complainant the said ticket was cancelled and rescheduled for dt 21.05.2017 and fare was deducted as per the terms and conditions.

6.              On perusal of the material available on record, there is no evidence available on record to show that, the O.P had intimated any point of time regarding the cancellation of the tickets for dt. 16.05.2017 nor there is evidence to show that the O.P has refunded the fare for the said cancellation to the complainant. As per conditions 5.3 of the conditions of the carriage the fares are refundable. It is seen from  the annexure-D, filed by the O.P that on the query of the complainant the customer care personnel found rescheduled of the flight. This shows that the reschedule of the flight is not at the option of the complainant. But the complainant finding no alternative has booked fresh tickets for dt.21.05.2017.

7.               Under the aforesaid discussion and documentary evidence available on record, it is believed that the complainant had not requested for any cancellation of tickets and the rescheduled of the flight is not at the option of the complainant. Therefore, this act of the O.Ps cannot be said to be fair and non-refund of the fares for the cancellation of the tickets for dt.16.05.2017 amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

8.               The complainant is an Advocate by profession and sustained professional loss for the aforesaid negligent act of the O.Ps and hence the complainant is entitled to compensation.

                                        Hence ordered:

                  The O.Ps are directed to refund Rs 6,416/- (Rupees six thousand four hundred sixteen) along with Rs 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) towards compensation and cost to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 9% P.A. till payment.

Order pronounced in open forum today this the May 3rd  of 2018.