THE PRESIDENT

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

CASE No. CC- 19  of  2020

 

Sri Ranajoy Roy Chowdhury,

C/O- Dr. Goutam Roy Chowdhury,

New Manikya Press Building,

LRC Computers, LN Bari Road, Agartala,

P.S. West Triprua, Tripura. ...….................Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

1. Make My Trip(INDIA) Pvt. Ltd.,

B-36, 1st Floor, Pusa Road,

New Delhi, -110005.

 

2. Vikash Saini,

holding the post of Director,

B-46, Sriram Apartment

Plot No-32, Sector 4, Dwarka,

New Delhi, 110075.

 

3. Indresh Kumar Gupta,

Holding the post of Wholetime Director,

Flat No-D-1003, GPLEDEN HEIGHT,

Sector 70, Gurgaon,

Haryana-122001.

 

4. Auutapalli, Kamal Kishore,

Holding the post of Whole time Director,

A-801, Medinova Towers,

GH-50, Sector, 56, Gurgaon,

Haryana, 122011.

 

5. Vikash Kumar Tiwari,

Holding the post of Secretary,

A-11, Associated Apartment,

IP Extension, opposite Pankaj Plaza Market,

New Delhi- 110092. ..................Opposite Parties.

 

 

     __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

Dr (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA,

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Koushik Roy,

  Sri U.S. Singha,

  Mrs. Riya Chakraborty,

  Learned Advocates.

    

For the O.Ps : Mr. Saikat Rahman,

  Learned Advocate.

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON  :  10.09.2021

 

 

J U D G M E N T

The Complainant's case in short is that the complainant is a private professionals and is running business of Information Technology. The father of the complainant is a medical officer of Agartala city. On 23.11.2019 father of the complainant had booked 5 tickets through the O.P. namely 'Make My Trip' vide invoice no- 1000000077441519 dated 23.11.2019 bearing booking ID no- NF71162246867306 for the passenger namely Sri Goutam Roy Choudhury, Lekha Roy Choudhury, Ranajoy Roy Choudhury, Rishan Roy Choudhury and Nilanjana Karmakar Roy Choudhury totaling Rs.24,400/-. But suddenly thereafter on 24.11.2019 at about 23.39 hours the booking was cancelled without any instruction from him and refund Rs.5900/- has been processed in the make my trip wallet of the complainant. Immediately at 23.40 hours on 24.11.2019 though no such amount was in the wallet of the complainant. The complainant was duty bound to go to Delhi from Kolkata for their some urgent works including treatment for which the complainant and other family members had to fly Delhi by paying an excess fair of Rs.27,000/-. He made an attempt for online crime reporting to the Digital Police. On 25.11.2019 complainant sent an email to the Superintendent of Police, Cyber Crime, Tripura. He also contacted with the customer care unit through online but the executive told the complainant that they does not know exactly what happened and assured him that they would update within 48 hours after investigation. But till date they are unable to provide any solution. Complainant also lodged Ezahar to the Officer in Charge, West Agartala Police Station dated 14.12.2019 and case was registered vide no- 2019WAG353 U/S 420 of Indian Peal Code. The complainant stated that the acts of the O.Ps are totally deficient and the complainant suffered pain, agony and much inconvenience along with other family members. Thus, the complainant filed this case claiming compensation of Rs.2,51,900/-.

 

2. On the other hand, the O.Ps appeared and filed written statement denying all the allegations made by the complainant. It is stated by the O.Ps that the present complaint filed by the complainant is absolutely frivolous, misconceived and malafide. O.P. No.1 is a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and enjoys immense goodwill and reputation for providing superlative services to thousands of consumers. It is stated that the O.P. No.1 acts as a facilitator for booking the confirmed air tickets/hotel bookings on behalf of its customers with concerned service providers. Any person intending to purchase any product or avail the services of the O.P. No.1, is governed by the terms and conditions of the user agreement. It is also mentioned that for availing services of the O.P. No.1 the intended traveller has to enter into an E-contract with the O.P. No.1 by consenting the terms and conditions of the O.P. No.1. Any alteration, cancellation or modification in the booking can be done as per policy of the O.P. No.1. It is also stated by the O.Ps that there is no territorial jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The present case has been filed with a motive to fasten the liability or loss caused to the complainant due to his own fault, upon the O.Ps. To avail the services of the O.P. No.1 the intended traveller has to create an account  with the O.P. no.1 through email ID or mobile number of the user. And the user shall also have to choose a password to access the user's account registered with the O.P. No.1. Rs.5900/- was also refunded to the complainant and vouchers worth Rs.5740/- had been redeemed against the MMT Wallet of the complainant on 24.11.2019. The O.Ps also denied the cancellation of the bookings by its won. The booking process is fully automated process with no human interference. Only the person using the account is the master of the booking. It is stated by the O.Ps that once confirmed tickets are shared, the O.Ps are discharged from all the obligations and liabilities qua the said bookings. It is also stated by the O.Ps that after duly checked the web portal activity of the instance of cancellation and found that the IP address used for the cancellation of the said confirmed booking was different from that of the booking instance. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps  and thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.  

 

3. EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:-

The complainant submitted his examination in chief on affidavit and examination in chief of his wife, Smt. Nilanjana Karmakar Roy Choudhury. Also exhibited the 7 documents i.e., which are marked as Exhibit- 1 Series. On the other hand O.Ps  also submitted examination in chief of one Ekank Mehra, Manager(Legal) & Authorized Officer of Make My Trip(India) Pvt. Ltd. They also filed 9 documents which are marked as Exhibit-A Series.

 

4. POINTS TO BE DETERMINED: - 

(i) Whether the proceeding is maintainable in law?

(ii) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps?

  (iii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation/ relief as prayed for?

 

5. ARGUMENTS: - 

  Learned Counsel Mr. Koushik Roy for the complaiant argued the case and he submitted that there is no dispute about online booking of tickets on 23.11.2019. the total fare for the tickets was Rs.24,400/- only. Thereafter on 24.11.2019 at 23.49hrs the complainat noticed that his booking was cancelled without any instruction from him and refund of Rs.59,00/- has been processed in the Make My Trip wallet of the complainant. Though no such amount was received. He further submitted that for the cancellation the complainant and other family members had to fly Delhi by paying an excess fare of Rs.27,000/- and they lodged an Ejhehaar alleging the facts to the Officer in charge, West Agartala P.S. on 14.12.2019 and it was registered. Mr. Roy further submitted that the booking IP address number and the cancelling IP address number are not the same. The cancellations was made from the continent of North America. It was the laches on the part of the O.P. in respect of security measures of their website. So, it is a clear case of deficiency of service. Mr. Roy further submits that this District Commission has territorial jurisdiction as cause of action arose at Agartala. On the other hand Learned Counsel Mr. Saikat Rahman submitted that O.P. is not liable for the cancellation. They received request for cancellation of the tickets and accordingly they have done it. Mr. Rahman also submitted that this District Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the journey was from Kolkata to Delhi and there is no branch office of the O.P. within the jurisdiction of this District Commission. Mr. Rahman further submitted that the complainant is liable to be dismissed. 

 

6. FINDINGS  AND  REASONS  FOR  DECISION:-

                   All the points are taken up together for convenience. We have gone through the pleadings, evidences and documents submitted from both sides. On perusal of the pleadings and evidences we find that there is no dispute about online booking. The dispute is in respect of cancellation of the tickets. Complainant in their oral evidences reiterated the facts which are asserted in the complaint. So, we are not reproducing the evidences adduced by the complainant side. Witness namely Ekank Mehra deposed on behalf of the O.P. and stated that O.P. acts as a facilitator for booking the confirmed air tickets/hotel booking on behalf of its customers concerned service provider. Upon receiving the confirmation from concerned service provider the booking ID is generated and confirmed booking/ticket is shared with the customers. All the online transactions by the users of the website or mobile application of the O.Ps are governed by the website's and applications users agreement. At para-9 of his deposition he specifically  stated that Booking ID was NF71162246867306 and booking date was 23.11.2019 and travel amount was Rs.23,945/-. The flight details was Kolkata to New Delhi via Indigo Airlines 6E-6616 dated 06.01.2020. The name of passengers was Goutam Roy Choudhury, Lekha Roy Choudhury, Ranajoy Roy Choudhury, Rishan Roy Choudhury, Nilanjana Karmakar Roy Choudhury. At para -16 of the examination in chief the witness stated that the O.P. provides the intended traveller/user, with many security blankets such as the use of One Time Pass Word (OTP) and other electronically enabled option to secure the information and other travel related information of the intended traveler/user, then sent on the registered Email address of the complaint. The witness deposed that O.P. was not liable for any loss that may be incurred by the user as a result of non authorized use of pass word of account either that without the user's knowledge. 

Further the witness at Para- 20 stated that being a consumer-centric and technologically-driven company, on the instance of the complainant being aggrieved by the said cancellation the  representatives of the O.P. duly checked the web portal activity of the instance of cancellation and found out that the IP address used for the cancellation of the said confirmed booking was different from that of the booking instance. 

Booking- IP address- 117.237.196.114

Cancellation IP address- 129.213.99.115. 

The witness at para 29 of examination in chief stated that the O.P. has duly co-operated with the Cyber Crime Unit, Tripura Police Crime Branch, Agartala at the instance of the complainant approaching the Cyber crime unit to report fraud against the cancellation of the said confirmed bookings. 

In the said para it is admitted that there may be  possibility of the cancellation of the said confirmed bookings to be  a case of fraud. 

On appreciation of the evidences of both sides we find that no request was made from the side of the complainant for cancellation of the confirmed ticket. It is also found that complainant lodged Ejhaar alleging the cyber crime and there is a dispute. For the security laches on the part of the O.P., the consumer should not suffer while confirmed tickets are cancelled by adopting fraud. In our considered view, this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this District Commission. We also hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. and hence, complainant is entitled to get compensation. 

 

7. Hence, we give direction to the O.Ps to make refund of the amount of the tickets i.e., Rs.24,000/- and also to pay Rs.50,000/- by way of mental agony, harassment and the price of purchasing the tickets for journey. O.P. further will pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost. That is in total O.P. is to pay Rs.84,000/- and O.P. shall pay the amount within 2 months to the complainant from the date of judgment and if fails, it will carry interest @ 9%. P.A till realization. Thus, complaint petition is allowed partly. Supply copy of this judgment to the complainant and the O.Ps. free of cost.  

 

 

Announced.

 

 

SRI R. PAL

PRESIDENT, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

 

 

Dr (SMT) B. PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA,

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.