Delhi

North East

CC/134/2016

Kuldeep Kr. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indigo - Opp.Party(s)

01 Apr 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 134/16

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

In the matter of:

Shri Kuldeep Kumar

S/o Shri Raghu Raj Singh

R/o 500/20, Gali No. 13

Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara

Delhi-110032                                                                                                Complainant

	Versus

1. Indigo

Regd Office: Central Wing

     Ground Floor, Thapar House

     124, Janpath, New Delhi-100001

 

2. Shri Vikas Kumar

Director: M/s Travel Paradise Online Pvt. Ltd.

222, LakhiBagh, Dehradun (Uttrakhand)-248001

 

3. Ms. Smita Gupta

Director: M/s Travels Paradise Online Pvt. Ltd.

306, Lakhi Bagh, East Anshik

Kotwali, Dehradun (Uttarakhand)-248001

 

4. M/s Travel Paradise Online Pvt. Ltd.

     222, Lakhi Bagh, Dehradun (Uttrakhand)-248001                        Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:                ORDER RESERVED ON:                DATE OF ORDER:

20.05.2016 14.03.2022 01.04.2022

 

 

 

ORDER

 

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

             The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1.         The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant purchased 09 air E-tickets from the Opposite Party No. 1/ Indigo, through Opposite Party No. 4 i.e. Travel Paradise by paying a cash of Rs. 85,000/- for the journey which was to be undertaken from New Delhi to Goa on 26.10.2014 and from Goa to New Delhi on 31.10.2014. The Complainant received a call on behalf of Opposite Party No. 1 informing that air-tickets had been cancelled by mistake and told the Complainant to apply for refund otherwise the company would book the air tickets again.  Complainant asked the Opposite Party No. 1 that how the tickets had been cancelled without his prior permission. The Opposite Party No. 1 assured the Complainant to book the air tickets again within a day or two but the same was not done.

2.         On 24.09.2014 the Opposite Party No. 1 refused to refund the booking amount and also told the Complainant that no fresh tickets would be booked. It is alleged that the Opposite Parties are indulged in unfair trade practice. The Complainant has prayed for issuing directions to Opposite Parties to refund the sum of Rs. 85,000/- paid by him along with interest @ 12% p.a. He has also claimed Rs. 2,00,000/- towards compensation for harassment. It is also prayed by the Complainant to award Rs. 33,000/- on account of litigation charges.

3.         Notices were issued to the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Party No. 2, Opposite Party No. 3 & Opposite Party No. 4 were proceeded against ex-parte on 12.09.2018. Vide order dated 22.11.2016 defence of Opposite Party No. 1 was struck off. However, as per the direction of Hon’ble State Commission Opposite Party No. 1 filed the written statement on 27.10.2017.

Case of Opposite Party No. 1

4.        The Opposite Party No. 1 contested the case and filed written statement to the complaint of the Complainant. It has raised the preliminary objection that the Complainant has filed the present Complaint against a wrong entity. It is stated that the corporate name of the company is InterGlobe Aviation Limited whereas, the present complaint has been filed against Indigo hence it is defective. It was submitted by the Opposite Party No. 1 that the Complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The Complainant allegedly contacted the Opposite Party No. 2 for purchasing 09 tickets for himself and his friends from Delhi to Goa and from Goa to Delhi. However, the present complaint has been filed only on behalf of one individual. Therefore, the present complaint is defective and liable to be dismissed on this ground.

5.        It is stated that the tickets were cancelled only after receiving the request for cancellation on the travel portal “Travel Paradise Online Pvt. Ltd.”. It is stated that the booking of tickets is governed by certain terms and conditions known as “Indigo Conditions of Carriage”. The said terms and conditions were made known to the Complainant at the time of booking the tickets. The Complainant accepted the said “Indigo Conditions of Carriage”. It is stated that after deduction of the cancellation charges an amount of                          Rs. 53,037/- was refunded to Opposite Party No. 2. The Opposite Party No. 1 has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

6. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of the Opposite Party No. 1 wherein he has denied the preliminary objection raised by the Opposite Party No. 1 and he has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

 Evidence of the Complainant

7. The Complainant in support if his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint. He has relied upon the documents i.e. copies of cash receipt and e-tickets.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 1

8.        In order to prove its case Opposite Party No. 1 has filed affidavit of  Shri Rahul Kumar, Associated General Counsel (Litigation). In his affidavit he has supported the case of Opposite Party No. 1 as mentioned in the written statement. He has also relied upon the documents such as copies of the Letter of Authority dated 30.08.2018 and of the Board Resolution dated 30.08.2018, copy of certificate of Incorporation of InterGlobe Aviation Limited, copy of Indigo IndiGo CoC, copy of screenshot of the request of cancellation of tickets, copy of reservation summary showing the factum of the said refund and copy of the screenshot of the PNR depicting the refund of Rs. 53,037/- made to the travel agent of the Complainant.

Arguments and Conclusions

9.        We have heard the Learned Counsels for the parties and have perused the file. We have also perused the written arguments filed by the parties and case law relied upon by the parties. The Complainant has relied upon the judgments of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Air India Vs Dr. Mary Ramasamy & Ors. decided on 12.04.2012 and Air India Express Vs Dr. Sumant Bhardwaz & Ors. decided on 09.10.2013.

10.      Opposite Party No. 1 has relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Chenglvaraya Naidu Vs Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1,  Oswal Fats & Oils Ltd. Vs Commr. (Admn.) (2010) 4 SCC 728, Consumer Unity & Trust Society Vs The Chairman & Managing Director, Bank of Baroda, (1995) 2 SCC 150, Ravneet Singh Bagga Vs KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and Anr. (2000) 1 SCC 66 and Interglobe Aviation Ltd. Vs N. Satchidanand (2011) 7 SCC 463.

11.      From the pleadings and evidence, it is revealed that following facts are admitted.

1. That Complainant booked 9 air tickets with Opposite Party No. 1 for journey from New Delhi to Goa on 26.10.2014 and from Goa to New Delhi on 31.10.2014.  
2. That the above said 9 tickets were cancelled by Opposite  Party No. 1.

12.      The case of the Complainant is that the above mentioned air tickets were cancelled by Opposite Party No. 1 without his permission or knowledge. It is the case of the Complainant that the said air tickets were cancelled by Opposite Party No. 1 illegally and Opposite Party No. 1 had assured the Complainant that it would refund the booking amount or it would book the air tickets afresh. On the other hand the case of the Opposite Party No. 1 is that the said air tickets were cancelled on the request received from the booking  agent who had booked the said tickets on behalf of the Complainant.

13.      The issue which is to be decided is that whether the air tickets were cancelled on the instruction of the Complainant or of his Agent or that the said air tickets were cancelled illegally by the Opposite Party No. 1. The case of the Opposite Party no. 1 is that the tickets were cancelled on the request of the booking agent who had booked the tickets for the Complainant. To support its contention the Opposite Party no. 1 has placed reliance on Annexure R-4. The Annexure R-4 is the print out of screen shot of a computer.

 14.     Now, the question arises how much reliance has to be placed on Annexure R-4. The first thing which is to be noted is that the perusal of Annexure R-4 shows that it does not reveal that any cancellation request of the tickets was made. Further, it is to be noted that Annexure R-4 is a print out of a computer. No evidence has been left by the Opposite Party No. 1 regarding the computer from where the said print out was taken, in whose custody the said computer was, who had taken the print out of the screen shot of the said computer and when the said screen shot was taken. What is more important to be noted is that the requisite certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act has not been placed on record. Therefore, under these circumstances it is held that document i.e. Annexure R-4 is not admissible in evidence and hence it cannot be looked into. Therefore, in our consider opinion the Opposite Party No. 1 has failed to show that the tickets were cancelled either on request of the Complainant or his Agent who had booked the tickets for the Complainant.

15.      In view of the above discussion it is held that the Complainant is entitled for the refund of an amount of Rs. 85, 000/- which he had paid for booking of the air tickets. This amount shall be paid by Opposite Party No. 1 i.e. Indigo along with an interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the recovery of this amount. The Opposite Party No. 1 shall also pay Rs. 5,000/- as litigation charges along with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for harassment.

16. Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

17. File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)                                              (Surinder Kumar Sharma)      

       (Member)                                                                          (President)