Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/236/2017

Deepak Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Anant Pal Singh

12 Jul 2018

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/236/2017
Date of Institution	:	17/03/2017
Date of Decision	:	12/07/2018

 

Deepak Kumar son of Late Sh. Om Parkash Sharma, R/o H.No.1805, Sector 33-D, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

[1]     MakeMy Trip India Pvt. Limited, 243, S.P. Infocity, Udyog Vihar, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122016, through its Director/ Authorized Signatory.

 

[2]     Indigo Airlines, C/o Interglobe Aviation Limited (Indigo), Global Business Park, Gurgaon, Haryana, India, through its Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory.

…… Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	SH.RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Vineet Mittal, Vice Counsel for Sh. Anant Pal Singh, Counsel for Complainant.
		Sh. Naveen Sharma, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1.
		Ms. Jasdeep Kaur, Counsel for Opposite Party No.2.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

1.         Shri Deepak Kumar, Complainant has preferred this Consumer Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against M/s MakeMy Trip India Private Limited and Another (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that on 18.11.2016 he booked one ticket for himself of Indigo Airlines (Opposite Party No.2) from Mumbai to Chandigarh for 16.01.2017, through Opposite Party No.1 vide Annex. C-1. On the date of departure i.e. 16.01.2017, when the Complainant reached the Mumbai Airport, he was informed that there was no such flight plying for the past 1½ to 2 months. In these circumstances, the Complainant had to purchase another ticket for Rs.6,821/- vide Annexure C-2. Thereafter, without any request made by the Complainant, the Opposite Party No.1 refunded the amount of his cancelled flight to his account. With the cup of woes brimming, has filed the instant Consumer Complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         Opposite Party No.1 filed its written statement, inter alia, pleading that it merely acted as facilitator for booking the tickets. If at all the flights are non-operational, the concerned Airline should report the same to the answering Opposite Party, therefore, the sole responsibility was of the Airline concerned i.e. Opposite Party No.2. It has been asserted that the booking was not cancelled by the answering Opposite Party. On account of the flight being non-operational, the answering Opposite Party duly refunded the booking amount after receiving the same from the Opposite Party No.2. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         Opposite Party No.2 resisted the Complaint and filed its separate written version, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that the flight in question was cancelled on 17.12.2016 (approx. one month after the issuance of ticket) due to bad weather which were beyond the control of the answering Opposite Party.  On account of the said cancellation, the Opposite Party No.2 offered the Complainant a refund of INR 2,269/- being the fair difference between the tickets originally booked by him and the fresh booking undertaken by him on 16.01.2017. The said offer was accepted by the Complainant.  By processing the refund of INR 2,269/- the Opposite Party No.2 ensured that the Complainant had effectively been re-booked onto an alternative flight of his choice on 16.01.2017 at no additional cost. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.2 has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5.         Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainant filed the rejoinder.
6.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
7.         We have gone through the entire evidence and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the Parties.
8.         Admittedly, Opposite Party No.2 cancelled the flight in question on 17.12.2016 one month prior to the date of original flight of the Complainant, but it has not produced any evidence to the effect that due intimation in that regard was given to the Complainant. Further, even after a lapse of one month i.e. till the scheduled date of the flight i.e. 16.01.2017, Opposite Party No.2 never approached the Complainant for the refund of the amount of the ticket. Opposite Party No.2 rather refunded the fare difference of the previous ticket and fresh ticket at the airport itself when the Complainant was struck with no other alternative mode of journey. Hence, the act of the Opposite Parties for non-informing the Complainant about the cancellation of the flight and thereafter non-refunding the amount of cancelled flight without asking of the Complainant is certainly deficiency in service and their indulgence into unfair trade practice, which has certainly caused unprecedented mental agony and harassment to the Complainant.
9.         In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is partly allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed:-

 

[a]    To pay Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant on account of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and causing mental agony and harassment; 

[b]    To pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation;

 

10.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] and [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid.
11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
12/07/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member	Member	President