Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/309/2019

Make My Trip India Pvt. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Krishan Singla - Opp.Party(s)

Nitin Bhaseen Adv. Zenith Law Chambers

23 Feb 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	:	309 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	19.12.2019
Date of Decision	:	23.02.2022

 

MakeMy Trip (India) Pvt. Ltd., Building No.5, Tower-B, 19^th Floor, Building No.5 (EPITOM), DLF Cyber City, Phase-3, Gurugram-122002, Haryana.

…..Appellant.

Versus

Krishan Singla S/o Late Sh. R. S. Singla, Chamber No.73, District Court, Chandigarh.

…Respondent.

 

BEFORE:    MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER.

                   MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

Argued by: (Through Video Conferencing):

 

Sh. Nitin Thatai, Sh. Harsh Vardhan and Sh. Nitin Bhaseen, Advocates for the appellant.

Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the respondent.

 

PER  RAJESH  K.  ARYA, MEMBER

                   This appeal has been filed by the opposite party (appellant herein), namely, M/s Make My Trip, against order dated 04.10.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (now District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh) (in short ‘District Commission’), vide which, consumer complaint bearing No.460 of 2019 filed by the complainant (respondent herein) namely Sh. Krishan Singla was partly allowed and the appellant was directed to refund the amount of Rs.13,180/- to the respondent besides payment of Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. The order was to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the opposite party was made liable to pay the aforesaid amounts of Rs.13,180/- and Rs.5,000/- towards compensation alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till realization besides paying litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-.

2.                Briefly, stated the case of the respondent/complainant before the District Commission was that the complainant had to travel from Chandigarh to Mumbai after every three-four months as per the doctor’s appointment in connection with the homeopathy treatment of his wife Smt. Neelam Singla. He took an appointment for 14.05.2019 and accordingly, booked online tickets from Chandigarh to Mumbai and back from his Chamber, through his credit card of HDFC for Rs.25,769/-. However, the ticket from Bombay to Chandigarh was cancelled due to Jet Airways business crisis. Accordingly, he requested the Opposite Party for accommodation in some other flight, which was denied. He sought refund, upon which he was told that he was entitled for the refund of Rs.13,180/- only but when the refund was delayed, the complainant served a legal notice through e-mail on 25.04.2019 but of no avail.

3.                When despite service, none appeared on behalf of the opposite party, it was proceeded against exparte by the District Commission.

4.                The order passed by the District Commission has been assailed by the appellant/opposite party on the ground that the District Commission failed to consider the terms and conditions of the User Agreement including cancellation policy, which was duly understood and consented by the respondent/complainant at the time of booking of the said tour package. It has further been stated that the address mentioned in the memorandum of parties of the complaint does not belong to the appellant and the said office is mere a franchise of the appellant. It has further been stated that the District Commission failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant duly informed the respondent about the discontinuation of the operations of the Jet Airways, which resulted in cancellation of the return sector flight from Mumbai to Chandigarh dated 14.05.2019. It has further been stated that the Jet Airways is liable to compensate the respondent and not the appellant being merely a facilitator for booking of services from the concerned service providers. It has further been stated that the District Commission also failed to appreciate that the Jet Airways has been placed into Bankruptcy proceedings dated 20.06.2019 and an Interim Resolution Professional has been appointed by the Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal and as a result, any refunds (full or partial) shall now get processed as per the directions of the Hon’ble NCLT.

5.                On the other hand, on behalf of the respondent, it has been argued that the basis upon which, the appellant is trying to build its case is false. It has been stated that due opportunity was given by the District Commission to appear before it to plead its case but the appellant despite service chose not to appear before the District Commission and as such, it was rightly proceeded against exparte by the District Commission by passing the impugned order.

6.                After hearing the Counsel for the parties and going through the evidence on record and the written arguments of the parties very carefully, we are of the considered view that the present appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The contentions raised by the appellant in the appeal deserves rejection in view of correspondence inter se the parties placed on record by the respondent vide Annexures C-3 to C-4. Per documents placed on record of the District Commission, it is established that the booking of the respondent for his return journey by Jet Airways from Mumbai to Chandigarh was cancelled by the appellant due to jet airways business crisis and he was not accommodated on some other flight in lieu of the said cancelled return ticket. No doubt, cancellation of return ticket also entails deduction of some charges but the fact remains that on account of such cancellation, the complainant suffered immense harassment and mental agony, when the disputes was inter se the appellant and the Airlines. We are in agreement with the argument raised on behalf of the respondent that when the appellant is picking profit into his pockets against the flight bookings, then duty is also cast upon the appellant to refund the hard earned money of the consumers. Further, the contention that the appellant is only a franchisee and is acting to provide bookings from the concerned Airlines, therefore, the Airlines is liable to refund the amount and not the appellant is also bereft of any substance. In the instant case, the appellant is the agent of the Jet Airways Airlines and it acts on behalf of its principal, the airlines. Therefore, it (appellant) is also liable for the deficiency in rendering service and unfair trade practice on the part of its principal, the Jet Airways in the instant case. Now coming to the next contention that the appellant duly informed the respondent about the discontinuation of the operations of the Jet Airways, which resulted in cancellation of the return sector flight from Mumbai to Chandigarh dated 14.05.2019, it may be stated here that despite knowing the fact that there was business crisis of Jet Airways, the appellant booked the ticket of the said Airlines on behalf of the respondent and accepted the requisite fee/charges. However, it was required of the appellant to apprise the respondent before booking the journey that there could be cancellation on account of business crisis in Jet Airways. Further as regards the refund policy and limited liability of the appellant and the Airlines going into liquidation, it may be stated here that despite the fact that at this stage, such kind of contentions cannot be accepted due to the reason that the respondent cannot be made to suffer on account of inter se dispute of the agent and the principal i.e. the appellant and the Jet Airways. The appellant has stated that since it had filed the claim with the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), as such, the respondent/complainant can very well recover the amount from Airlines in liquidation proceedings. Once amount is accepted by the appellant on behalf of the Jet Airways, then the appellant is bound to refund the amount received. As the Jet Airways was never made the party in the complaint, therefore, the appellant, being its agent, is liable to refund the amount, as rightly held by the District Commission in its order. In this view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the District Commission does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed being devoid of any substance.

7.                For the reasons recorded above, this appeal being devoid of any merit, is dismissed with no order as to cost.

8.                Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

9.                File be consigned to the Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

23.02.2022.

 (PADMA PANDEY)

       PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

(RAJESH  K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Ad