Haryana

Karnal

CC/619/2022

Parteek Bathla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Make My Trip India Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Bindiya Arora

31 Oct 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                          Complaint No. 619 of 2022

                                                          Date of instt.02.11.2022

                                                          Date of Decision 31.10.2023

 

1.     Parteek Bathla son of Shri Prem Sagar Bathla.

2.     Bindiya wife of Shri Parteek Bathla.

3.     Ekansh Sagar Bathla (minor) son of Shri Parteek Bathla, through his natural guardian and next friend Parteek Bathla, all residents of H.No.14, Sector-13, Urban Estate, Karnal.

                                                 …….Complainants.

                                              Versus

 

1.     MakeMyTrip India Pvt. Ltd. through its authorized signatory, DLF Building No.5, Tower B DLF Cyber City, DLF, Phase-2, Sector-25, Gurugram, Haryana 122002, India.

2.     Indigo Airlines Level-1, Tower C, Global Business Park, Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road 122002 through its authorized signatory.

3.     Director General of Civil Aviation, Opposite Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi 110003 through its authorized signatory.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Suman Singh…..Member

 

 Argued by:      Shri K.S.Dhakla, counsel for complainants.

                        Shri Apaar Bedi, counsel for OP No.1.

                        Shri Rohit Gupta, counsel for OP No.2.

                        OP No.3 ex-parte VOD 10.08.2023.

 

                       (Vineet Kaushik, Member)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainants have filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that the complainants No.1 & 2 are Advocates by profession. Complainants were planning to travel Thailand as there were holidays in Court w.e.f. 15.06.2022 to 03.07.2022. On 19.5.2022, the complainant No.1, raised a query regarding the travel package for two adults and one child. Accordingly, on 20.05.2022, the agent of OP No.1 namely Namita Jain shared screenshot of the travel details for Phuket Island Escape for four nights/five days w.e.f. 29.6.2022 to 03.07.2022 and quoted the total cost as Rs.88,536/-. On 20.05.2022, Namita Jain instructed to send passport declaration for minor in case booking agent do not get copy of passport of minor till 25.06.2022. Complainant clearly mentioned the name, date of birth and gender in Passport Declaration. Complainant No.1 disclosed to Namita Jain that the process of issuance of passport belonging to complainant No.3 is still under process, on which she told the complainant No.1 to fill passport number and she further stated that after the receipt of passport belonging to complainant No.3, they will get it uploaded in the tickets, but he has to give passport disclaimer in this regard and accordingly, OP No.1 took the passport disclaimer from the complainant No.1. The passport disclaimer is obtained only in case wherein the issuance of renewal of passport is in process. The complainant made the payment of Rs.9000/- as token vide booking ID NL2231103163616.  The complainant further made the payment of Rs.33,201/- and Rs.44,201/- on 28.05.2022 and 12.06.2022 respectively. On 23.06.2022, the complainant No.1 shared the copy of passport belonging to complainant No.3 with representative of OP No.1, namely Namita Jain and on 23.06.2022 itself, OP No.1 got insured the complainant No.3 through Reliance General Insurance vide certificate No.130492128221026753, wherein the particulars of the complainant No.3 i.e. name, passport number, gender, date of birth etc, were mentioned correctly. The complainant received the travel vouchers from OP no.1 on 25.06.2022, wherein only name and PNR were mentioned. The complainant did not pay any heed to it due to the above mentioned assurance given by Ms.Namita Jain. On the day of flight, on 29.06.2022, upon reaching the check-in counter of airport, the utmost shock of complainant, the concerned person informed the complainant that passport has not been updated and thus the issued tickets were rendered void. Due to said unprecedented incident, the complainants No.1 & 2 persuaded the concerned person at the check-in counter and also conveyed the conversation between the complainant No.1 and Namita Jain but to no avail. As a last resort, the complainant No.1 called the customer care of OP No.1 at 03:30 AM and the concerned representative directed complainant to wait till 10:00 AM. Despite several requests made and genuine concern raised by complainant No.1 to OPs, that the flight is scheduled at 06:30 AM so he needs immediate and effective redressal however such request and concern fell to deaf ears to the OPs. Putting in consideration that OPs operate 24/7 and 365 days because of nature of their business/duty and such business comes with certain responsibilities and obligations which are also supposed to be given to customers, the whole scenario proves how lethargic, negligent, unethical and unprofessional are OPs in their business. Left with no other option, complainant have to buy a new ticket for complainant No.3 amounting to hefty price of Rs.61,483/-. Intimation of the whole incident, trouble, hardship and harassment was given by complainant to Ms.Namita Jain over Whatsapp at 06:00 AM. The payment was made from the Credit Card of complainant No.2 whereas the complainants have reserve the amount in their credit card for spending the same in their tour. On 5.7.2022, complainant raised the issue on the website of OP No.1 over mail/telephone Mr.Prashant, representative4 of OP No.1 asked the complainant No.1 to share all the relevant details of the incident and accordingly complainant shared the same then and there over the mail ID. Later on another executive of OP No.1 Mr.Atul was looped in, in the same issue and thereby on 12.07.2022, a conference call was received by the complainant and Mr.Atul and one Ms.Jain as callers. In the conference call, both the representatives persuaded and tried to overpower the complainant No.1 by saying that ‘the passport was updated but you entered wrong child details, however the complainant No.1 did not give in to their arm-twisting and repeatedly told them both that the passport was not updated. The complainant No.1 also asked both the representatives to send the issuance date of the updated passport or any other tracking details with respect to updated passport as per their records, however, the representatives were silent on this. On 15.07.2022, despite the most genuine and sincere claims, the complainant received a mail from one Mr.Prashant that the claims of complainant has been declined based on wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and incomprehensible grounds. The OP No.3 is the custodian and controlling body of OPs No.1 & 2 and is under obligation to regulate and manage the working affairs of OPs No.1 & 2 and take appropriate action against such unprofessional practices and impose punitive and exemplary damages. Hence, the present complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs No.1 & 2 appeared, whereas OP No.3 sent a letter by post mentioning therein that the present complaint is primarily against M/s Make My Trip and others in respect of delivery of services to the complainant by private entities. However, in the present case, DGCA has been made as a OP No.3, whereas DGCA which is attached office to Ministry of Civil Aviation and has no role in such matters. DGCA is primarily a Safety Regulator and the subject dispute is between two private parties, thus, it is a private dispute arising out of a contractual obligation. The DGCA has no role to play in settling such private  disputes arising out of contractual obligations between private parties. On 10.08.2023, despite repeated calls, none has appeared on behalf of OP NO.3, hence, it was proceeded against ex-parte.

3.             OP No.1 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to jurisdiction, cause of action, etc. On merits, it is submitted that all the online transactions by the users of the website or the mobile application are governed by the website’s and application’s user agreement. Any person intending to purchase any product or avail the services of the answering OP is governed by the terms of the User Agreement. For availing the services of the OP, the intended traveler has to enter into an E-contract and consents to be bound by to the terms and answering OP, thorough an overt manifestation of clicking on “I Agree” pop up or button. Hence, the customers are bound by the terms and conditions of the User Agreement of the OP. Complainants are being aggrieved because they had to buy an extra flight booking for their ‘child’, i.e. OP No.3 since the concerned Airline, i.e. OP No.2 declined them to board the concerned flight for discrepancy in the information as provided in the concerned flight booking and the concerned passport of the complainant No.3. However, at the time of booking of tickets, the complainants duly accepted the terms and conditions of the User Agreement. It is submitted that the complainants No.1 & 2 at the time of making the concerned booking with the OP had disclosed to the concerned representative of the OP, that the complainant No.3 was a child and his passport was in the process of being issued at the time of making the concerned bookings. In lieu of the same, the concerned representative of OP, duly informed and guided the complainants that at the time of bookings, which the complainants No.1 & 2 had to do themselves on the online platform of the OP, they should enter all the true details such as name, age, date of birth correctly as applied in the passport and can enter the dummy passport number for the complainant No.3, which shall be changed to the correct passport number, when subsequently the complainants No.1 & 2 shall provide the true copy of the complainant No.3’s passport. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention here that in accordance with the concerned applicable rules, the OP had duly informed the complainants No.1 & 2 that the details of complainant no.3 passport should be shared latest by 25.06.2022. Complainants No.1 & 2 embarked on booking the concerned bookings on the online platform of the OP wherein they themselves had to enter all the details of the concerned intended Travellers such as name, surname, date of birth, age etc as mentioned in the application for passport.  However, it is submitted that at the time of making of the flight bookings the complainants No.1 & 2 were duly shown on the online platform of the OP, the differences between the Adult, Child and Infant were accordingly guided to process with booking of the concerned bookings by entering the correct details of each passenger including the complainant No.3. Complainants No.1 & 2 had entered the category of the complainant as an Infant rather that as a child. Hence, the sole grievance of the complainants, which is the fact that the complainant No.3 was denied boarding the concerned flight due to discrepancy of the complainant no.3’s age on the issued flight bookings and his passport, has only occurred due to the negligence and omission on the part of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             OP No.2 also filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections stating that the complainants have incorrectly mentioned the name of OP No.2 as IndiGo Airlines in the captioned consumer complaint whereas the correct name of OP NO.2 is InterGlobe Aviation Limited, hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It is further submitted that the present complaint inter alia complaining with respect to not updating the details of passport of the complainant NO.3 by the officials of OP No.1 thereby seeking a sum of Rs.61,403/- towards the cost of new ticket bought by the complainants, alongwith other compensation. The complainant, although rightly has not raised any allegation against the OP No.2 and alleged deficiency of service against OP No.1 only and hence, the OP No.2 is entitled to be deleted from the array of parties at the very threshold. On merits, it is submitted that OP No.2 duly informed the complainants that the ticket for complainants that the ticket for complainant No.3 was booked as an infant accompanying complainants No.1 & 2, however, complainant No.3 on the date of travel was above the age of 2 years and hence, could not be considered as an infant and hence it was advised to the complainants that a fresh ticket may be booked for complainant No.3 to which the complainants duly agreed. The OP No.2 upon receiving information regarding the said issue, OP No.2 immediately refund the total amount charged by it with respect to the complainant No.3 and issued new ticket with correct details. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

6.             Learned  counsel for the complainants has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of query raised Ex.C1, copy of disclaimer Ex.C2, copy of payment receipts Ex.C3 to Ex.C5, copy of chat Ex.C6 and Ex.C7, copy of insurance Ex.C8, copy of Travel voucher Ex.C9, copy of whatsapp chat Ex.C10, copy of Credit and payment done at airport Ex.C11, copy of notice to MMT, copy of reply from MMT Ex.C13, copy of denial of refund Ex.C14, copy of passport Ex.C15, copy of boarding pass Ex.C16, copy of  Air ticket Ex.C17 and closed the evidence on 06.07.2023 by suffering separate statement.

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of S.Sreesh, Assistant Manager (Legal) & Authorized representative of OP No.1 Ex.OPEW1/A, copy of board resolution Ex.OP1, copy of user agreement Ex.OP2, copy of town package Ex.OP3, copy of screenshot of logs Ex.OP4, copy of corrected insurance policy Ex.OP5, copy of screenshot of webpage Ex.OP6, copy of civil aviation requirement Ex.OP7, copy of cancellation flights by airline Ex.OP8, copy of criminal and closed the evidence on 28.07.2023 by suffering separate statement.

8.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Raghav Mahajan, Senior Legal Counsel Ex.OP2/A, copy of authorization letter Ex.OP2/1  and copy of resolution Ex.OP2/2 and closed the evidence on 10.08.2023 by suffering separate statement.

9.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

10.           Learned counsel for complainants, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that on 20.05.2022, the complainants No.1 & 2 wants to go to Thailand. They contacted the agent of OP No.1 Namita Jain, who shared screenshot of the travel details for Phuket Island Escape for four nights/five days w.e.f. 29.6.2022 to 03.07.2022 and quoted the total cost as Rs.88,536/-.  The complainants made the payment of Rs.9000/- as token money.  The complainants further made the payment of Rs.33,201/- and Rs.44,201/- on 28.05.2022 and 12.06.2022 respectively. On 23.06.2022, the complainant No.1 shared the copy of passport belonging to complainant No.3 with Namita Jain and OP No.1 got insured the complainant No.3 through Reliance General Insurance company wherein the particulars of the complainant No.3 i.e. name, passport number, gender, date of birth etc, were mentioned correctly. The complainants received the travel vouchers from OP no.1 on 25.06.2022, wherein only name and PNR were mentioned. On 29.06.2022, upon reaching the check-in counter of airport, the concerned person informed the complainants that passport of complainant no.3 has not been updated and thus the issued tickets were rendered void. The complainant No.1 called the customer care of OP No.1 at 03:30 AM and the concerned representative directed complainant to wait till 10:00 AM. The flight is scheduled at 06:30 AM so he needs immediate and effective redressal but to no avail. No other option, complainant no.1 purchased a new ticket for complainant No.3 amounting to Rs.61,483/-. Intimation of the whole incident, trouble, hardship and harassment was given by complainants to Ms.Namita Jain over Whatsapp at 06:00 AM. The payment was made from the Credit Card of complainant No.2 whereas the complainants have reserve the amount in their credit card for spending the same in their tour. On 5.7.2022, complainant raised the issue on the website of OP No.1 over mail/telephone Mr. Prashant, representative of OP No.1 asked the complainant No.1 to share all the relevant details of the incident and accordingly complainant shared the same. A conference call was received by the complainant. In the conference call, both the representatives persuaded and tried to overpower the complainant No.1 by saying that ‘the passport was updated but you entered wrong child details. The complainant No.1 also asked both the representatives to send the issuance date of the updated passport or any other tracking details with respect to updated passport as per their records, however, the representatives were silent on this. On 15.07.2022, the complainant received a mail from one Mr.Prashant that the claims of complainant has been declined based on wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and incomprehensible grounds and prayed for allowing the complaint.

11.           Per contra, learned counsel for OP No.1, while reiterating the contents of the written version, has vehemently argued that complainants are being aggrieved because they had to buy an extra flight booking for their child i.e. complainant No.3, since the concerned Airlie i.e. OP No.2 declined them to board the concerned flight for discrepancy in the information as provided in the concerned flight booking and the concerned passport of complainant No.3. The complainants have miserably failed to apprise the real facts of the present case as at the time of booking on online platform of OP No.1. The complainants No.1 & 2 had entered the category of complainant No.3 as an infant rather than as a child despite the fact that the age of complainant No.3 was more than 2 years. Complainant No.3 was a child and his passport was in the process of being issued at the time of making the concerned bookings. The concerned representative of OP No.1 duly informed and guided the complainants that at the time of bookings, on the online platform of the OP No.1, they should enter all the true details such as name, age, date of birth correctly as applied in the passport and can enter the dummy passport number for the complainant no.3 which shall be changed to the correct passport number when subsequently, complainants No.1 & 2 shall provide the true copy of complainant No.3’s passport. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention here that in accordance with the concerned applicable rules, the OP No.1 had duly informed the complainants No.1 & 2 that the details of the complainant No.3’s passport should be shared latest by 25.06.2022. The fact of child has been intentionally concealed by the complainants in order to avoid payment of ticket and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

12.           Learned counsel for OP No.2, while reiterating the contents of the written version, has vehemently argued that the present complaint is with respect to not updating the details of passport of the complainant No.3 by the officials of OP No.1 thereby seeking a sum of Rs.61,403/- towards the cost of new ticket bought by the complainants, alongwith other compensation. The complainant has not raised any allegation against the OP No.2 and alleged deficiency of service against OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP No.2.

13.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

14.           Admittedly, the complainants No.1 & 2 booked the tickets for themselves and for complainant No.3 for going to Thailand. It is also admitted that at the airport, the complainant No.3 was not allowed to board the flight by the airport authority due to not updating of passport of OP No.3.

15.           The OP No.1 has taken a plea that this Hon’ble Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as the complainants have failed to disclose any cause of action against the OP and secondly the registered office of OP is situated in Gurugram and also works for gain in Gurugram.

Section 34 (2) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is reproduced as under:-

(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Commission within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,—

(a)   the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, ordinarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or

(b)  any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case the permission of the District Commission is given; or

(c)   the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises; or

(d)   the complainant resides or personally works for gain.

                As per Section 34 (2) (d), the complainant has jurisdiction to file his complaint where he/they resides or personally works for gain and in the present complaint the residents of all complainants is of Karnal, therefore, this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint. Hence, plea taken by the OP has no force.

16.            The another plea taken by the OP No.1 is that the complainant No.3 was denied boarding the flight due to discrepancy in the age of complainant No.3. The onus to prove the fact that the complainants No.1 & 2 had conveyed the wrong date of birth of complainant No.3 and due to this act of the complainants No.1 & 2, they had to buy new ticket for complainant No.3, was upon the OP No.1, but the OP No.1 has not placed on record any document to prove its contention. On the other hand, the complainant has alleged that the OP No.1 has not updated the particular and as such, the airline authority denied the complainant No.3 to board the flight. From screenshot of message Ex.C1, it is crystal clear that the complainant No.1 demanded the details of travel of Phuket for two adult and one child and from the another screen shot, it is also clear that the complainants had inquired about the package for two adult and one child. From the passport disclaimer Ex.C2, it is also proved that the complainant No.1 has provided the correct particulars of complainant No.3 to the OP No.1 but due to the negligence of the OP No.1, the complainants has suffered harassment at the airport only due to the negligent act of the representative of OP No.1 and under the compelling circumstances, the complainants No.1 & 2 had to bought new ticket for complainant No.3 and paid Rs.61403/- for that. Hence, this plea taken by the OP No.1 is having no force at all.

17.           In view of the above, there is no deficiency on the part of OPs No.2 & 3, hence, complaint qua OPs No.2 & 3 stands dismissed.  

16.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP No.1 to pay Rs.61403/- (cost of ticket) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of purchase of ticket till its realization. We further direct the OP No.1 to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.11,000/- towards the litigation expenses.  The complaint qua OPs no.2 and 3 stands dismissed. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:31.10.2023

                                                        President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                (Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Suman Singh)    

                         Member                     Member