DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 696/2016
Date of Institution : 20.12.2016
Date of Decision : 11.12.2017
Dr. (Ms.) Tanu Garg aged 42 years wife of Dr. Rajesh Kumar Garg resident of K.C. Road, Barnala-148101 (Punjab) Near Telephone Exchange.
…Complainant
Versus
1. Make My Trip India Pvt. Ltd., UG-7, Upper Ground Floor, TDI Mall, 11, Shivajit Place Complex, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027 through its Managing Director/Authorized.
(Email Address: sunita.maskara@makemytrip.in)
2. Chairman, Make My Trip India Pvt. Ltd., F-26, First Floor, Connaught Palace, Inner Circle Complex, Opposite Palika Bazaar, New Delhi-110001.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. SK Kotia counsel for complainant.
Sh. Puneet Pabby counsel for opposite party No. 1.
Opposite party No. 2 exparte.
Quorum.-
1. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Presiding Member
2. Shri Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member
ORDER
(MS. VANDNA SIDHU PRESIDING MEMBER):
As per complaint No. 696 of 2016 the complainant Dr. Tanu Garg wife of Rajesh Kumar Garg has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties that the complainant had joined one scheme launched by opposite parties. The opposite parties offered a scheme to a group of doctors member of Bathinda Ophthalmology Society for a trip/excursion tour to Bhutan for herself, her husband and her daughter and paid a total amount of Rs. 95,500/- out of which Rs. 4,000/- was paid to the representative as token money in cash. Remaining amount was sent through Punjab National Bank, Branch Handiaya Bazaar, Barnala and representative of opposite party met the complainant at Barnala. So, the complainant is consumer of the opposite party.
2. It is submitted that during discussion with the representative of the opposite parties, complainant told that none of her family members have passport and representative of opposite parties stated that Identity Proof of Voter Card would be sufficient to visit Bhutan. The complainant asked that her daughter being minor has no voter card then the representative assured that the school identity card would be sufficient for the child. He sent the scanned copy of complainant and her husband and school identity card of their daughter through email on 17.12.2015. But there was no positive or negative response from the opposite parties. The opposite party never informed the complainant that original birth certificate of the minor was mandatory. Then, the complainant alongwith her family reached Delhi on 21.12.2015 to board Druk Air Flight on 22.12.2015. However the opposite party demanded birth certificate of her daughter at the eleventh hour but at that time the birth certificate of minor was not with the complainant, so the complainant and her family was not allowed to board the plane and had to return to Barnala, which is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant requested the opposite party to refund the money alongwith interest but after dilly-dallying the matter a week ago from filing the present complaint the opposite party flatly refused to refund the money with interest.
Relief.-
1) For directing the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs. 95,500/- paid by the complainant to the opposite parties.
2) To pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of payment i.e. 15.12.2015 till 19.12.2016 (Rs. 31.40 paise per day) amounting to Rs. 11,585/-.
3) To pay Rs. 10,000/- on account of expenses incurred for traveling from Barnala to Delhi and return journey alongwith night stay on 21.12.2015 at Delhi.
4) To pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony to the complainant.
5) To pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
6) Any other relief which this Forum deems fit.
3. Upon notice of this complaint the opposite party No. 1 filed written version taking legal objections on the grounds that the complaint of complainant is not maintainable. That the present complaint is misconceived and frivolous and abuse of the process of law as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as the default was made at the end of the complainant herself by not carrying all the necessary documents for travel at the airport, despite of clearly being aware of the same. Further, that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as per terms and conditions of agreement. It is submitted that complainant had joined a scheme launched by opposite party wherein a group of doctors who were members of Bathinda Ophthalmology Society were offered a trip to Bhutan. The complainant booked the trip to Bhutan for herself as well as for her husband and daughter by paying a sum of Rs. 95,500/-. On receiving the payment the opposite party confirmed the booking in the name of complainant and e-tickets alongwith Confirmation Voucher were issued to complainant to that effect. It is further submitted that at all the times the complainant was clearly explained all the documents required by the Airport Authorities to allow the complainant and her family to avail the confirmed booking to Bhutan. On inquiry it was clear to the complainant that in case the complainant's daughter is not having a valid passport or voter ID, a Birth Certificate being mandatory alongwith School Photo ID would be required to be shown to the Airport Authorities. But the complainant failed to carry her daughter's birth certificate to the airport. It is pertinent to mention here that even as per the specific instructions given in the confirmation voucher issued to the complainant it was specifically mentioned that all the passenger are required to carry original proof of identification i.e. Voter ID or Valid Passport and in case of minors below 18 years of age are required to carry a valid passport or birth certificate being mandatory alongwith any photo ID proof like school or college ID proof. It is further submitted that despite the complainant being aware of the aforesaid rule and was also specified in the confirmation voucher issued to the complainant at the time of making the desired booking, the complainant did not provide/carry all the required documents. So, the opposite party cannot be made liable for the failure on the part of the complainant for not providing/carrying the Birth Certificate of her daughter at the airport and as a result faced problem. All this happened because of the careless and negligent attitude of the complainant herself. The opposite party cannot be made liable for the acts and omission on the part of the complainant. It is further submitted that answering opposite party being a booking agent had issued the confirmed booking for the complainant and her family and being a booking agent discharged its duty but if the complainant did not avail the said booking due to her own fault the opposite party cannot be held liable for the fault at the end of the complainant. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party discharged all its obligations by providing the services as agreed. It is further submitted that complaint is without any cause of action against opposite party as opposite party is not guilty of any deficiency in service.
4. On merits, it is denied that the complainant is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum. It is also denied that the complainant was informed by the representative of the opposite party that school identity card bearing date of birth would be sufficient for the child to avail the booking. It is submitted that the complainant was categorically explained that a birth certificate was mandatory to be provided/carried alongwith a school identity card. It is pertinent to mention here that the same was also enumerated in the confirmation voucher issued to the complainant. However, the complainant still failed to provide/carry the birth certificate of her daughter due to reasons known best to her. Thus, for the careless and negligent attitude of the complainant herself, the opposite party cannot be made liable for any deficiency in service. It is denied that the complainant is entitled to any refund. It is also denied that the opposite party has caused any mental tension, agony or harassment. The opposite party has acted with utmost care and diligence and the complainant is not entitled to any compensation or any other damages charge such as interest, cost of litigation. Last the opposite party No. 1 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
5. The opposite party No. 2 not appeared before this Forum despite service so the opposite party No. 2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 8.2.2017.
6. In order to prove her case, the complainant has tendered into evidence copy of Itinerary cum Reservation detail Ex.C-1, copy of confirmation voucher Ex.C-2, copies of counterfoil of PNB dated 15.12.2015 Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4, copy of email dated 17.12.2015 Ex.C-5, her own affidavit Ex.C-6, affidavit of Dr. Amrit Sethi Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.
7. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite party No. 1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Ankita Mishra Ex.OP-1/1, copy of resolution Ex.OP-1/2, copy of agreement between user and make my trip Ex.OP-1/3 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No. 1.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file. Written arguments also filed by the complainant and the opposite party No. 1.
9. Following issues are framed in the present complaint.-
1) Whether the transaction in regard of availing services of above stated trip was made at Barnala or not ?
2) Whether the present Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint ?
3) Whether the opposite parties falls under Section 2(g) and 2(r) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 ?
10. After perusing the entire record and hearing both the counsel for parties, this fact has come in the knowledge of this Forum that as per Ex.C-1 Airline PNR issued three tickets to the complainant alongwith his husband and minor daughter in pursuance of trip named Make My Trip India Private Limited for trip (excursion tour) to Bhutan. Ticket No. 7872400797887 was issued to Dr. Rajesh Kumar Garg, ticket No. 7872400797888 issued to Dr. Tanu Garg complainant and ticket No. 7872400797886 was issued to Prakriti Garg. As per complaint complainant deposited Rs. 95,500/-. Rs. 4,000/- was paid to representative out of Rs. 95,500/- as token money in cash. As per Ex.C-3 the complainant paid Rs. 48,000/- on 15.12.2015 and as per Ex.C-4 the complainant paid Rs. 43,500/- on 15.12.2015 through Punjab National Bank, Handiaya Bazaar, Barnala. So, the transaction in regard of payment to opposite parties was made from Barnala and by this way the above said Forum has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Furthermore, it is pertinent to mention here that as per complaint and affidavit of complainant Ex.C-6 the representative of opposite parties met to the complainant at Barnala. Complainant also brought on record Ex.C-6 her own affidavit and Ex.C-7 which is affidavit of Dr. Amrit Sethi in these affidavits deponents deposed that representative of the opposite parties replied about the query by the complainant in regard of her minor daughter because complainant has not in possession of voter card of minor daughter. Representative of opposite parties gave information that school identity card bearing date of birth would be sufficient for child and he never informed the complainant that original birth certificate of the said minor is mandatory. When complainant alongwith her family reached Delhi on 21.12.2015 to Board Druk Air Flight on 22.12.2015 the opposite party demanded birth certificate of minor daughter of the complainant at the 11th hour and the complainant and her family were not allowed to board the plane and they had to return to Barnala and opposite parties flatly refused to refund the money with interest. In evidence of the opposite parties they did not rebut affidavits Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-7. Opposite parties brought on record Ex.OP-1/1 affidavit of Assistant Manager Legal and Authorized Officer of Make My Trip (India) Private Limited. She deposed that since the complainant's daughter was a minor and was not in possession of voter card, school identity card bearing date of birth of complainant's daughter would be sufficient to avail the booking and no other document was required to be carried/shown at the Airpot for availing the trip at Bhutan. The complainant's daughter was not allowed to board the flight since only the school identity card of the complainant's daughter was made available. Whereas the birth certificate of the complainant's daughter was neither made available to the opposite parties nor was carried to the Airpot to show the Concerned Airport Authorities. In such circumstances, the complainant could not availed the confirmed booking to Bhutan but as per complaint and Ex.C-6 the complainant sent scanned copy of her own voter card and voter card of her husband and also sent scanned copy of school identity card of their daughter through email on 17.12.2015. Furthermore, it is mentioned in complaint and Ex.C-6 that the opposite parties never informed the complainant/deponent that original birth certificate of said minor was mandatory. Complainant also brought on record Ex.C-5 i.e. email of dated 17.12.2015. Ex.C-2 which is confirmation voucher about travel dated 22nd December 2015 is also brought on record by the complainant. So, the issue No. 1 is in favour of the complainant.
11. As per our opinion the transaction about above said amount i.e. Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 was effected from Punjab National Bank, Barnala and it was duly received by the opposite parties so the objection in regard of jurisdiction is totally vague and useless because payment in regard of above said tour was made from Barnala so this Forum has fully jurisdiction to try this complaint as per Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act. So, the issue No. 2 is in favour of the complainant.
In Kapil Kumar Khosla Versus DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Reported in CPJ, September 2017, Part-9, Vol. III Page-426/8 the Hon'ble Chandigarh State Commission held as under.-
“Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Sections 11, 17-Territorial jurisdiction-Place of accrual of cause of action-Exclusive jurisdiction-Such a condition, incorporated in agreements, executed between parties, excluding jurisdiction of a particular Court/Forum, and limiting jurisdiction to a particular Court/Forum, could not be given any importance, and the complaint should be filed, at a place, where part of cause of action arose, according to Sections 11/17 of Act-Part of cause of action accrued at 'Chandigarh'-This Commission has jurisdiction to entertain complaint.”
12. Moreover, opposite parties did not pay their attention towards the rules of Air Flight and due to negligence in service of opposite parties complainant could not bring with her original birth certificate of the minor if they informed the complainant at accurate time the trip of the complainant alongwith her husband and daughter was pleasable and enjoyful. The opposite parties induced to the complainant to invest her hard savings money in their trip by their representative who met and gave information to the complainant at her home. It is also very astonished fact that as per Ex.C-5 when complainant and her husband made contact with the opposite parties through Ex.C-5 on 17.12.2015, they did not informed to the complainant to bring original birth certificate of minor at the time of flight which is mandatory so this is unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties also. So, issue No. 3 is in favour of the complainant.
13. In view of above discussion present complaint is allowed and opposite parties are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 91,500/- as per receipts Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint till realization. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension and harassment and Rs. 1,100/- as litigation expenses. Compliance of order be made within the period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
11th Day of December 2017
(Vandna Sidhu)
Presiding Member
I don't agree. Separate
order will be given on 12.12.2017.
(Tejinder Singh Bhangu)
Member
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Consumer Complaint No: 696/2016
Date of Institution : 20.12.2016
Date of Decision : 12.12.2017
Dr. (Ms.) Tanu Garg aged 42 years Wife of Dr. Rajesh Kumar Garg resident of K.C. Road, Barnala-148101 (Punjab) Near Telephone Exchange.
...Complainant
Versus
1. Make My Trip India Pvt. Ltd. UG-7, Upper Ground Floor, TDI Mall, 11, Shivajit Place Complex, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027 through its Managing Director/Authorized.
(E-mail Address: sunita.maskara@makemytrip.in)
2. Chairman, Make My Trip India Pvt. Ltd. F-26, First Floor, Connaught Palace Inner Circle Complex, Opposite Palika Bazaar, New Delhi-110001.
...Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. SK Kotia counsel for the complainant
Sh. PK Pabby counsel for opposite party No. 1
Opposite party No. 2 exparte.
Quorum.-
1. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Presiding Member
2. Shri Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI TEJINDER SINGH BHANGU MEMBER ):
The complainant Dr. Tanu Garg has filed the present complaint against Make My Trip India Pvt Ltd., New Delhi opposite party No. 1 and Chairman, Make My Trip India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi opposite party No. 2 under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant had joined a scheme lanuched by the opposite party to a group of doctors member of Bathinda Ophthalmoloy Society for a trip to Bhutan for herself, her husband and her daughter and the complainant paid Rs. 95,500/- out of which Rs. 4,000/- was paid to the representative as token money in cash. Remaining amount was sent through Punjab National Bank, Branch Handiaya bazaar, Barnala.
3. The complainant had told the representative of the opposite party that none of the family members have passport then he told the complainant that identity proof of voter card would be sufficient to visit Bhutan. The complainant informed that her minor daughter was not in possession of voter card. He replied that school identity card bearing date of birth would be sufficient for the child. Then the complainant sent the scanned copy of her own voter card and of her husband and copy of school identity card of their daughter through email on 17.12.2015. But there was no positive or negative response of any kind from the opposite party. The opposite party never informed the complainant that original birth certificate of the minor was mandatory. The complainant alonwith her family reached Delhi on 21.12.2015 to board Air Flight on 22.12.2015. Then the opposite party demanded birth certificate of her daughter. As the opposite party did not inform the complainant well in time it was difficult to procure birth certificate of her daughter at the last moment. So, the complainant and her family was not allowed to board the plane and they had to return to Barnala. This is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
4. The complainant requested the opposite party to refund the money alongwith interest but they flatly refused to refund the money. So, the complainant filed the present complaint directing the opposite parties to pay the original amount of Rs. 95,500/-, interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of payment i.e. 15.12.2015 till 19.12.2016 Rs. 11,585/-, actual expenses for traveling from Barnala to Delhi and return journey alongwith night stay on 21.12.2015 at Delhi Rs. 10,000/-, compensation for mental agony and harassment Rs. 20,000/- and litigation expenses Rs. 10,000/- total Rs. 1,47,185/-.
5. The opposite party No. 1 filed written reply and taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable and is abuse of process of law. Complaint is misconceived, misleading, false and frivolous. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as the default was made at the end of the complainant herself by not carrying all the necessary documents for travel, at the airport despite of clearly being aware of the same. Further, this Forum does not have jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as per terms and conditions of the User Agreement available online. The representative of the opposite parties made clear to the complainant that in case the complainant's daughter is not having a valid passport or voter ID, a birth certificate being mandatory alongwith school photo ID would be required to be shown to the airport authorities but complainant failed to carry her daughter's birth certificate to the reasons best known to her. Further, as per the specific instructions given in the Confirmation Voucher issued to the complainant it was specifically mentioned that all the passenger are required to carry original proof of identification i.e voter ID or Valid Passport and in case of minors below 18 years of age are required to carry a valid passport or birth certificate being mandatory alongwith photo ID proof like school or college ID proof. So, there is no deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant and her complaint is wrong, incorrect and in no manner attributable to the opposite party.
6. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant was categorically explained that a birth certificate was mandatory to be carried alongwith a school identity card and the same was also enumerated in the Confirmation Voucher issued to the complainant. Further, the complainant is not entitled to any refund. They have finally prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.
7. The opposite party No. 2 not appeared before this Forum despite service so the opposite party No. 2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 8.2.2017.
8. The complainant tendered in evidence copy of Itinerary cum Reservation detail Ex.C-1, copy of confirmation voucher Ex.C-2, copies of counterfoil of PNB dated 15.12.2015 Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4, copy of email dated 17.12.2015 Ex.C-5, affidavit of complainant Ex.C-6, affidavit of Dr. Amrit Sethi Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence.
9. The opposite party No. 1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Ankita Mishra Ex.OP-1/1, copy of resolution Ex.OP-1/2, copy of agreement between user and make my trip Ex.OP-1/3 and closed the evidence.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the written arguments and evidence on the file.
11. Regarding admissibility of case on the basis of jurisdiction, I am of the opinion that now more and more business is being transacted “on line” and agreements as well as correspondence is being dealt through “e-mail”. So this thin line of jurisdiction is covering more and more area. In present days sale of goods is through “on-line” sales. There are tourism companies who sell packages for national and international tours on line. Customer makes a choice which is more attractive and economical to him/her. In present days it has nothing to do that where the area office or head office of the company is situated. In this case transactions were made through customer’s account at Barnala and token money of Rs 4000/- was
handed over to the company representative. So there is no ambiguity about jurisdiction in this case. So I am of the opinion that this case is very much admissible at District Consumer Forum at Barnala.
12. Through written as well as oral arguments, both the parties have taken two different but distinct positions. Complainant is insisting and sticking to the e-mail sent on 17.12.2015 to the company representative at sunita.maskara@makemytrip.in Ex-C5. She insists that through this mail complaint had submitted their ID proofs to the tourist company. Through this mail complainant had submitted scanned copy of her daughter’s school identity card along with her and her husband’s IDs. But as there was no positive or negative response of any kind from the opposite parties, so they proceeded to Delhi on 21.12.2015 to board plane as per itinerary. But the tourism company i.e. Opposite parties are relying on the contents of the confirmation voucher, which has been placed on record by the complainant herself Ex.C-2. It is written in this document that All passengers are required to carry original proof of identification. Foreigners: passport with Bhutan visa.
Adult: voter ID card or valid passport,
Child (2 years-below 18 years): valid passport OR birth certificate (Mandatory )+any photo ID proof (like school or college ID proof )
Infant : birth certificate ( English language )
The company had relied on it through their affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 and also through their written arguments. Weighing on both these arguments I conclude that there is mandatory requirement of birth certificate of a child, for boarding plane, was very much in the knowledge of the complainant. I observe that it is mentioned in bold letters at the confirmation voucher very conspicuously. On the other hand the complainant contention that she had sent photocopy of school ID of her daughter to the company on 17.12.2015 but there was no positive or negative response from the company, has nothing to do with the mandatory requirement as per agreement. Complainant must understand that photo ID proof was also one of the requirements. So what kind of response she was expecting from the company i.e. Opposite parties. I can say that it was a mistake at the customer level but she could not understand its consequences. It was a painful misadventure but no one else can be blamed except the complainant herself.
13. From all the above mentioned facts and circumstances it is well proved that the fault is on the part of the complainant herself so there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
14. In view of the above discussion, present complaint is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs or compensation. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
12th Day of December 2017
(Tejinder Singh Bhangu)
Member
