Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/14/1852

Mr. B. K. Shivaji S/o. B.S. Kasiram Aged about 60 Years - Complainant(s)

Versus

Make My Trip India Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. Ashish Krupakar and shivayougi B. Hallur

20 Aug 2018

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 03.11.2014

                                                      Disposed on: 20.08.2018

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

 

 

CC.No.1852/2014

DATED THIS THE 20^th AUGUST OF 2018

PRESENT

 

 

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

 

	Complainant/s	V/s	Opposite party/s
1	B.K.Sivaji, S/o B.S.Kasiram, Aged 60 years, R/at No.126, 8th A Main, 16th Cross, J.P.Nagar 4th Phase, Bangalore-560 078.	1	Make My Trip India Pvt. Ltd., Registered office: Tower A, SP Infocity, # 243, Udyog Vihar, Phase I, Gurgaon, Haryana-122 016 Rep by its Managing Director
2	Neeraja B.S., D/o B.K.Sivaji, Aged about 27 years, R/at No.126, 8th A Main, 16th Cross, J.P.Nagar 4th Phase, Bangalore-560 078.   By.Adv.Ashish Krupakar	2	Make My Trip India Pvt. Ltd., Unit No.101, Cear’s Plaza, No.136, Residency Road, Landmark- Opposite Bangalore Club, Bangalore-560 025.   By.Adv.C.G.P.Ramakrishna

 

PRESIDENT: SRI.S.L.PATIL

1.       This complaint has been filed by the complainants as against the Opposite Parties directing to refund the booking amount of Rs.46,911/- with 18% interest from the date of the journey till date, to pay Rs.71,000/-, the same being the cost of the subsequent flight ticket that the Complainant was forced to book on account of OPs deficiency of service, to compensate for anxiety and mental harassment and award damages of Rs.50,000/-, pay costs of Rs.20,000/- towards legal expenses and to grant such other orders.

2.       The brief facts of the case of the complainants are that the Opposite Party runs a portal by the name of “makemytrip.com” with the primary objective of enabling customers to plan their travel, both domestic as well as international, find the lowest fares and accordingly book and finalize their itinerary. The OPs unique selling proposition that differentiates it from other individual airline websites where clients directly book their journey tickets lies in the fact that the portal enables clients to choose from the various permutations and combinations of airlines that the portal arrives at in finalizing the lowest fare which benefits the end-customer. Drawn by the ostensibly good reputation that the Opposite Party enjoys in the market, Complainant was led to believe that the best of services would be provided by them assuring a hassle free travel for his daughter. The Complainant states that his daughter Ms.Neeraja B.S. is currently studying her Masters in design in the University of Northumbria at Newcastle, England, UK. As such she wished to travel to India for her first visit after she joined her university. The international air travel requires months together of planning and execution and accordingly on Complainant’s daughter conveying her desire to visit India in the month of May 2014 Complainant visited the portal makemytrip.com and booked her flight tickets on British Airways (hereinafter referred to as ‘BA’) from Newcastle (NCL) to London (Heathrow) (LHR) and London to Bangalore (BLR) for 1.5.2014 and for the return journey on 31.5.2014. This booking was executed by Complainant on 21.3.2014. Accordingly, the Complainant was issued with an e-ticket with booking ID-NN230247116144. The Complainant states that his daughter Ms.Neeraja B.S. reached Newcastle airport well in advance to board her flight to London and to board the subsequent flight to Bangalore. When Ms.Neeraja B.S. reached the Newcastle airport, she was shocked to be informed by the BA staff that her name on the ticket was to be expanded, without which she would not be allowed to board her flight. Ms.Neeraja B.S. who was shocked at this suggestion, having no other choice, sought for reissuance of a ticket with expanded name with the BA staff itself with her expanded name. However, the BA staff expressed their inability to make amends of any sort since the booking was done through portal and said that the only option she had was to get it corrected through Opposite Party. Panicked and saddened at the unexpected sudden turn of events, Ms.Neeraja B.S. immediately called up her father, the Complainant, who called up the OPs help desk and requested the call centre representative to make the necessary amends and e-mail the corrected e-ticket immediately so that this daughter could travel as planned. The Opposite Party instead of responding immediately to an emergency situation, did absolutely nothing to rectify the situation immediately which could have easily been rectified had they had the will to do so. The OPs representatives went on putting the call on hold without taking any proactive steps to remedy the situation and due to OPs unfortunate deep state of inaction Ms.Neeraja B.S. was not allowed to board her flight and was shattered at the thought of missing her vacation which caused her severe mental agony.  Although phone calls were made three hours prior to the departure time which gave the Opposite Party sufficient time to issue a corrected ticket, Opposite Party did nothing to remedy the situation. To Complainant’s further rude shock, he was informed that having not been allowed to board the onward flight, the round trip itself was liable to be cancelled. To add insult to injury, Complainant received an e-mail, addressed by one Indubala from Opposite Party on 2.5.2014 with an “apology” for the “unpleasant instance” requesting for a shocking time-frame of 24 hours to resolve Complainant’s query. This response came rather late for Complainant who by then had undergone severe stress along with his daughter for having not been allowed to board her flight for the inertia at the OPs end. Had the Opposite Party acted in a responsible manner by taking necessary steps on an emergency basis, a situation like this would not have arisen. The Complainant further states that he was compelled to book fresh tickets for his daughter’s return journey on 2.5.2014 for her trip from Newcastle to Bangalore and return thereto at an exorbitant price of Rs.71,000/-. Undoubtedly, the Opposite Party is responsible for such a situation and Complainant is liable to be compensated for the same. The Complainant who was compelled to cancel his daughter’s flight tickets booked through portal lost Rs.46,911/- on account of OPs laxity to issue renewed ticket. An amount of Rs.11,919/- was refunded by Opposite Party to Complainant on 14.5.2014 deducting the cancellation charges for no fault of his. The refund having been processed from the OPs end amply demonstrates that Opposite Party is the only point for Complainant or any client to make amends of any nature to their respective itineraries. The Complainant being aggrieved by the deficiency of service of the Opposite Party and the consequent monetary loss and mental agony which he and his family had to undergo issued a legal notice to the Opposite Party dt.23.6.2014 calling upon the Opposite Party to refund the amount of Rs.46,911/- and Rs.50,000/- towards mental harassment and nervous breakdown his daughter had to suffer within 15 days from receipt of the notice. The Complainant was further surprised to receive an untenable reply from the Opposite Party dt.14.7.2014 who chose to simply wash off their hands on frivolous grounds. While admitting that the Complainant’s daughter was not allowed to board the aircraft unless the name was amended, the Opposite Party very casually states that since the booking was completely online and there was no human interference and shifted the blame on the Complainant that it was on his account that there was a spelling mistake when it is specifically his case that there was no spelling mistake but that the airline only sought for the full name to be mentioned on the ticket. Further, the Opposite Party has very casually told the Complainant to approach the respective airline if he has any other grievance. While admitting that the refund of Rs.11,919/- from their end as cancellation refund, which clearly demonstrates that they are the agency for the Complainant for any grievance, the Opposite Party has illegally washed off their responsibility and liability. It is submitted that on account of the Opposite Party being a full service portal, it is vested with all the authority to process the booking by collecting the fare, and issuing the e-ticket and all the authority to make cancellation and amends to the itinerary if a customer do desires. Accordingly, the Complainant having paid the complete fare, the Opposite Party had the legal responsibility of effecting the necessary changes to Complainant’s daughter’s e-ticket so that it would fall in line with BA’s policy. On account of OPs laxity, Complainant and his daughter and their family have suffered severe monetary loss and mental agony for which Opposite Party is liable to compensate Complainant. The laxity of Opposite Party in making the necessary amends amounts to severe deficiency of service.  The Complainant submits that Opposite Party cannot take shelter behind the veil of an online transaction stating that since no human intervention and that it was an online transaction it had no liability whatsoever. By virtue of the fact that Opposite Party has a call centre which assists the customers whenever they face any trouble indicates that it is much more than a mere online portal going beyond just a man and machine interaction and transactions. The Opposite Party is blowing hot by stating that they have rightly refunded the cancellation amount deducting appropriate cancellation charges and on the other hand blowing cold by stating that the transaction being online, there was no scope of human interference at their end. If Opposite Party is allowed to take such an arbitrary stand then the day is not too far away when any online portal would simply wash its hands off blaming the customers for any fault without taking any proactive steps.   Hence, the Complainant submits to allow the complaint.

3.       The 2^nd Opposite Party has subsequently added. On receipt of the notice, Opposite Parties did appear and filed the version. Except online booking of the ticket, rest of the allegations has been denied. Further submits that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction. Further, the complaint filed by the Complainant is bad for mis-joinder of the parties. It is also submitted that role of the OPs is very limited. While making any booking online through MMT’ (OP) website, there remains no manual interference at the end of the Opposite Party. Whatever details as per the steps enunciated therein, are filled in by the users of the website (Complainant herein), the booking is made accordingly, once the payment to that effect is received by the Opposite Party. Further, incase of any operational and technical issues, pertaining to materialization of the booking made by the Complainant or making payment thereon, the Opposite Party shall only be liable to refund the booking amount as per the applicable terms in the cancellation of the policy of OPs website User’s agreement. Therefore, the Opposite Party shall in no circumstances liable for direct, indirect, punitive, incidental, special, consequential damages or any damages whatsoever including, without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profits, arising out of or in any way connected, with the use or performance of the MMT website or any other channel. Further, the parties had agreed that in no case the liability, if any, shall include any loss, damage or additional expense, whatsoever beyond the amount, charged by MMT for its services.  Further, submits that though the booking in question was non-refundable still when the Complainant cancelled the said booking, the Opposite Party as a customer centric approach, refunded the applicable amount to the Complainant in the account vide which the booking in question was made by the Complainant. Whatever the information that has been furnished by the Complainant has been mentioned in the e-ticket supplied to him and there is no dispute with regard to the same. The e-ticket shared with the Complainant is not disputed. The Opposite Party being the booking agent had issued the confirmed ticket for the Complainant well in advance.  Therefore, the Opposite Party being a booking agent discharged its limited duty of service facilitator. With regard to the refusal to hold on account of non-expansion of the 2^nd Opposite Party’s name is no way concerned. If the name found in the e-ticket, did not match to the passport, in that event, no one can allow in the flight. With regard to the e-mail made by the 1^st Opposite Party is concerned, it was beyond the scope of the Opposite Party. When the name was not expanded, under such circumstances, no stigma can be attached on the OPs. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4.       The Complainants to substantiate their case, Complainants have filed their affidavit evidence and got marked as Ex A1 to A5. The Opposite Parties have filed affidavit evidence and got marked as Ex-B1 and B2.  The Complainants as well as Opposite Parties has filed their written arguments. Heard both sides.

           5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

       1) Whether the Complainants proves the deficiency in service on

            the part of the OPs, if so, whether they are entitled for the relief

            sought for?

        2) What Order?

                  

6.  Our answers to the above points are as under:

Point No.1 : Negative

Point No.2 : As per the final order for the following

REASONS

7. POINT NO.1 :   We have briefly stated the contents of the complaint as well as the version of the Opposite Parties. With regard to the territorial jurisdiction is concerned, this Forum has already decided number of cases in respect of online booking flight cases. The Complainant No.1 has booked online ticket in the 1^st Opposite Party website. The 1^st Opposite Party is the head office and 2^nd Opposite Party is the branch office located at Bangalore. The terms and conditions incorporated to opt only Delhi jurisdiction is concerned, the OPs have not produced any of the relevant documents. Hence in the absence of it, it is unsafe to arrive at a conclusion that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and dispose of this case, as the branch office of Opposite Party No.1 is at Bangalore.  

8.       It is the case of the Complainant No.1 that the 2^nd Complainant was not allowed to board the flight on account of non-expanding her name in the e-tickets. Further, the said ticket mismatch to the passport. The name ought to have been expanded by the 1^st Complainant at the time of booking the e-tickets whatever the information that has given by the 1^st Complainant in the OPs website, the e-ticket has been generated.   If the name found in the e-ticket is mismatching compared to the passport, the only option is to cancel that ticket and booked the fresh ticket. In the instant case, the 1^st Complainant who is the father of the 2^nd Complainant has booked the ticket. Thereafter, he got it canceled and booked the fresh ticket to the 2^nd Complainant who is his daughter by paying Rs.71,000/-. It is not in dispute that the Complainant has received Rs.11,919/- in the form of refund out the flight tickets booked through portal of the Opposite Party for Rs.46,911/-. Hence, we are of the opinion that we do not find any fault much less the deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. But it is the 1^st Complainant who has not given the detailed particulars while booking the e-ticket in the Opposite Party’s website by expanding the name of his daughter. Hence, the complaint filed by the Complainant is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.    Accordingly, this point is answered in the negative.

9.       POINT NO.2: In the result, we pass the following:

ORDER

The complaint filed by the Complainant is dismissed devoid of any merits.

Looking to the circumstances of the case, we direct both the parties to bear their own cost.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the open Forum on 20^th August 2018).

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)     PRESIDENT

 

 

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

 

B.K.Sivaji., who being the Complainant-1 was examined. 

Neeraja B.S., who being the Complainant-2 was examined. 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Ex-A1 & 1A	E-ticket issued by OP & telephone bill
Ex-A2	E-mail dt.2.5.2014
Ex-A3	Fresh ticket booked by Complainant through British Airways
Ex-A4	Legal notice
Ex-A5	Reply tendered by the OP dt.14.7.2014

 

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

 

1. Aakansha Singh, Manager-Legal, was examined.

2. Ekank Mehra, Authorized Signatory, filed affidavit evidence.

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party

 

Ex-B1	Board Resolution
Ex-B2	Online user agreement

 

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)     PRESIDENT