DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 30^th day of May, 2024

                                                                   Filed on: 16/09/2023

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                          President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                              Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                             Member

C.C. NO. 643/2023

COMPLAINANT

Paul Jacob, S/o. Jacob, Kalapurackal House, Kizhakkambalam P.O., Kunnathunade Taluk, Ernakulam District.

(Rep. by Adv. Biju P. Thomas, 1^st Floor, 66/6504, Matsun Towers, AK Seshadri Road, Ernakulam 682311)

VS

OPPOSITE PARTY

Make my Trip India Pvt. Ltd., F-26, 1^st Floor, Connaught Place Inner Circle, Opp. Palika Bazar, Delhi 110001. Rep. by its Managing Director.

F I N A L    O R D E R

Sreevidhia T.N., Member:

1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complainant had purchased a 2 air tickets for his son’s travel from Belfast to Kochi on 03/04/2023 and for return trip on 17/04/2023. The complainant had paid Rs.96,835/- to the opposite party towards the ticket charges. The tickets are re-schedulable ticket.

Thereafter on 21/03/2023 the complainant had requested the opposite party to re-schedule the outward flight from Belfast to Kochi to a nearest date since a family member of the complainant was facing some medical urgency. The request of the complainant was rejected by the opposite party, without any reasonable reasons. Hence the complainant was forced to purchase another ticket by paying £555.85 (equvalent to Rs.55,585/-) and the complainant’s son had travelled from Belfast to Kochi on 22/03/2023.

On 31/03/2023 the complainant had sent an e-mail to the opposite party informing that his son had travelled to Kochi on 22/03/2033 and will be travelling from Kochi to Belfast as scheduled, by using the return ticket already purchased.

On 08/04/2023, the complainant had received a telephonic call and e-mail from the opposite party stating that the flight scheduled from Kochi to Belfast on 17/04/2023 is cancelled. Immediately the complainant had enquired with the Airline Office and had convinced that the scheduled flight is not cancelled. The complainant had called the opposite party so many times and spoke to a person, who identified himself as a Supervisor by name Rohit Mohanty, who assured to the complainant to arrange ticket to the complainant on the same flight. On 16/04/2024 the opposite party had contacted the complainant and offered a ticket and informed that the complainant has to make an additional payment of Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- since the ticket was booked in advance and ticket charges not amenable to their demand for additional payment. The opposite party had changed their stand and denied the ticket to the complainant with an intention to grab more money from the complainant. The complainant had purchased another ticket on higher rate to travel from Kochi to Belfast by paying Rs.1,22,528/- since the journey could not be postponed.

Thereafter the opposite party had refunded Rs.95,436/- to the complainant on 29/05/2023. It is the usual practice of the opposite party, denying ticket to the customers, and later grabs more money.

The complainant had to spent money for purchasing new ticket to travel from Belfast to Kochi to the tune of Rs.55,585/- and from Kochi to Belfast to the tune of Rs.1,22,528/- apart from the amount collected by the opposite party. The petitioner had to incur Rs.1,78,113/- towards the price of the new tickets due to the wilful negligence and denial of air tickets to the complainant. The complainant is entitled to recover the difference amount of Rs.82,677/- from the opposite party.

The complainant states that the deficient act of the opposite party resulted in huge mental agony, pain, loss and injuries to the complainant. The complainant assess the values and such damages as Rs.1,00,000/- totalling to Rs.1,82,677/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the complaint till the date of payment.

2. Notice :

Notice was issued to the opposite party from this Commission on 05/10/2023. The notice sent to the opposite party returned with an endorsement ‘refused’ and hence treated as deemed service. Consequently opposite party was set as ex-parte.

3. Evidence

Evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant and the documentary evidence filed by the complainant which were  marked as Exbt. A1 and A2 (Series). No other evidence from the part of the complainant. Evidence closed and heard the complainant.

4. The issues came up for consideration in this case are as follows.

1. Whether any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is proved from the side of the opposite party towards the complainant?
2. If so, reliefs and costs?

For the sake of convenience we have considered issues No. (1) and (2) together. Exbt. A1 is the copy of e-ticket issued by the opposite party for Rs.96,835/- and Exbt. A2 (series) is the copy of e-mail communications between the complainant and the opposite party.

          The complainant had booked the ticket on 04/11/2022 for his son’s journey on 03/04/2023 and for the return trip (Kochi-Belfast, UK) on 17/04/2023. On 22/03/2023 the complainant had requested the opposite party to prepone the flight from Belfast to Kochi from 03/04/2023 to a nearest date. On 31/03/203 also the complainant had requested for prepone of the flight. The complainant stated that the opposite party had rejected the request of the complainant without assigning any reason. The complainant stated in the complaint that he was forced to purchase another ticket by paying £555.85 (Equvalent to Rs.55,585/-) and the complainant’s son travelled from Belfast to Kochi on 22/03/2023. The complainant was informed via e-mail on 08/04/2023 that the scheduled flight from Kochi to Belfast on 17/04/2023 was cancelled. The complainant states that the scheduled flight was not cancelled on that day. Hence the complainant had to purchase another ticket from another agency to travel from Kochi to Belfast by paying Rs.1,22,528/-. The complainant admitted that the opposite party refunded Rs.95,436/- to the complainant on 29/05/2023. The complainant states that the opposite party failed to provide the agreed service for which they have already collected Rs.96,825/- in advance as their service charge and ticket charges from the complainant. The complainant filed this instant complaint alleging deficiency in service from the part of opposite party seeking orders directing the opposite party to pay Rs.1,82,677/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum along with cost of proceedings. The complainant argued that the tickets purchased from the opposite party are re-schedulable tickets since there was an option given by the opposite party “as cancellation and date change charges” at the time of booking. Hence the complainant requested for re-schedule the ticket and the opposite party have rejected the request of the complainant eventhough the ticket was a re-schedulable ticket.

The complainant has produced two documents Exbt. A1 and A2. Exbt. A1 is the ticket for the journey on 03/04/2023 from Belfast to Kochi and return tickets from Kochi to Belfast for the journey on 17/04/2023. Exbt. A2 are the e-mail communication made by the complainant and the opposite party.

As per the available evidence filed in this case the complainant has failed to prove that he had incurred a loss of Rs.82,677/- due to the negligence or deficiency in service of the opposite party. The complainant also alleges that the opposite party had given false information that the flight in which the complainant’s son had to travel was cancelled and in fact the flight was not cancelled. The complainant has failed to produce an iota of evidence to prove that the scheduled flight from Kochi to Belfast on 17/04/2023 was not cancelled by the opposite party on that day. Moreover the complainant has admitted that Rs.95,406/- was refunded to the complainant by the opposite party. In the instant case the documents produced by the complainant are not sufficient to prove the case of the complainant.

Considering the above circumstances issued No. (1) and (2) are not found in favour of the complainant and the complainant has not been successful enough to prove his case by adducing evidence to substantiate the complaint.

In the case of SGS India Ltd. Vs. Dolphin International Ltd. 2021 AIR SC 4849 held that the burden of proving the deficiency in service upon the person who alleges it.

Resultantly, we find that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of evidence regarding deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30^th day of May, 2024.

Sd/-

Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

Sd/-

D.B.Binu, President

V.Ramachandran, Member

Forwarded/By Order

Assistant Registrar

Appendix

Complainant’s Evidence

Exbt. A1:    Copy of the ticket for the journey on 03/04/2023

Exbt. A2:    Copy of e-mail communication made by the complainant and the opposite party.

Opposite party’s Exhibits

Nil

Despatch date:

By hand:     By post                                                  

kp/

CC No. 643/2023

Order Date: 30/05/2024