BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 4th April 2017
PRESENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT. LAVANYA M. RAI : HON’BLE MEMBER
ORDERS IN
C.C.No.323/2015
(Admitted on 04.09.2015)
Mr. Manoj Kumar M.V.
Aged 26 years
S/o Muttyal Vasanth Kumar,
Research Scholar,
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
National Institute of Technology Karnataka,
Post Srinivasnagar,
Surathkal 575025,
Mangalore Taluk.
….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri BSB)
VERSUS
Make My Trip India Pvt Ltd.,
Tower A, SP Infocity,
243, Udyog Vihar, Phase I
Gurgaon, Haryana, Pin: 122016,
Having one of its Branch Office at
1st Floor, Abhiman Commercial Complex,
Near PVS Circle, Mangalore 575003,
Represented by its Managing Director.
…........OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for the Opposite Party: Sri VK)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D:
I. 1. The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant against opposite parties alleging deficiency in service claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant claims to attend an International Conference scheduled at Brussels of Belgium after verifying alternative on 10th June 2015 complainant booked a round trip air ticket from Bangalore to Brussels through Make My Trip web site of which the flight and all the flight arrangement was through Sri Lankan airlines flight of which from Paris to Brussels it was noted as flight UL 9951. But on the date of journey of 19th June 2015 Sri Lankan airline denied through check-in and was given boarding passes from flight from Bangalore to Colombo and Colombo to Paris and not of UL9951 to Brussels, there was no reply at helpline to the query concerned. Even at Colombo airport there was no satisfactory reply but was informed on reaching Paris he searched for terminal for the mischief flight UL9951 mentioned in the ticket received team ‘make my trip’. He was stunned on information at the helpdesk that there is no TN terminal in particular airport. But on enquiry he was informed that the trip from Paris to Belgium actually is by train. No information was given to complaint regarding the train journey involved. At the office at SNCF after verifying pass port and visa handed ticket for travel from Paris to Belgium by train. He was left with just 5 minute with actual train departure and had to rush. Make my trip had given false and carless information to the complainant leading to mental agony and torture and uncertainly and false representation. As such seeks reliefs claimed in the complaint.
II. Opposite party filed written version at para 6 of the written version specifically mentions that all sectors were utilized by complainant to his complete satisfaction except Paris to Brussels as inadvertently due to a technical automation error on their website, the ticket that was displayed and booked was of a train between Paris to Brussels which was inadvertently displayed as a Sri Lankan airlines flights. As the tickets were booked online there was no human interference at their end the error were completely beyond the control of opposite party. Train travel between European cities is quite popular and cheaper therefore some of the itineraries are displayed with interconnecting trains. The claims that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint user in the ticket user agreement in the NCR of Delhi has jurisdiction. Rest of the allegations made were denied hence seeks dismissal of the complaint.
2. In support of the above complainant Mr. Manoj Kumar M.V filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked at Ex.C1 to C7 as detailed in the annexure here below. On behalf of the opposite party Mr. Ankita Mishra (RW1) Asst. Manager Legal in the OP Company, also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on them and produced documents got marked at Ex.R1 to R2 as detailed in the annexure here below.
III. In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
The learned counsels for both sides filed notes of arguments. We have considered entire case filed on record including evidence tendered by parties. Our findings on the points are as under follows:
Point No. (i) : Affirmative
Point No. (ii) : Partly Affirmative
Point No. (iii) : As per the final order.
REASONS
IV. POINTS No. (i): The complainant having purchased the ticket within the jurisdiction of this Forum near PVS Circle Mangalore where Make My Trip India Pvt Ltd, has its branch office, that this Forum in our considered view has territorial jurisdiction to try the case. Complainant having purchased the ticket through opposite party Make My Trip the service provider there is consumer and service provider relationship between the parties. As the representing of travel from Paris to Brussels shown in the ticket as desired by the complainant as airline on Sri Lankan Airlines was not provided to complainant. Opposite party in the version it admits there was an error in the ticket. Hence there is live dispute between the parties as contemplated under section 2 (1) (e) of the C P Act. Hence we answer point No.1 in the affirmative.
Points No. (ii): As mentioned from written version of opposite party there is an error in the ticket issued to complainant is admitted by opposite party in so many words. Complainant in his affidavit evidence in the complaint mention his attempt to get to question the failure of Sri Lankan airlines to issue boarding pass from Paris to Brussels was not answered. Even according to complainant there is also mention made Dr. Annappa immediately contacted the customer care of Make My Trip executive with complainant made a first contact to customer care but no clear answers was provided by them. Thus in view of a misrepresentation made by opposite party to complainant while issuing the ticket from Paris to Brussels through Sri Lankan airline but in fact it was by train and that the mention made as UL9951 flight number of Sri Lankan airlines itself is a false representation. In our considered view there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party to complainant.
2. Of course the complainant did under take journey by train on the ticket issued by opposite party from Paris to Brussels but that does not absolve opposite party of the misrepresentation and unfair trade practice made to complainant and making complainant to remain from Bangalore airport till Paris with just 5 minutes before boarding the train at Paris towards Brussels. In the circumstances complainant succeeded in proving deficiency in service and by making false representation and unfair trade practice to complainant. Hence we answer point No.2 in the affirmative.
POINTS No. (iii): The complainant has sought compensation of Rs.5,00,000/ but considering that complainant having undertaken journey, towards the mental and hardship of complainant due to the negligence and false representation and unfair trade practice of opposite party side in our view should be directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/ including cost of the case to the complainant. Wherefore the following
ORDER
The Complaint is partly allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/ (Rupees Thirty thousand only) as compensation to the complainant within 30 days of this order. On failure of opposite party to pay the amount within stipulated time opposite party shall pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of payment.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 7 directly typed by steno on computer system to the dictation of President revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 4th April 2017)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
(LAVANYA M. RAI) (VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Mangalore. Mangalore.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 Mr. Manoj Kumar M.V
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.C1: 10.06.2015: Online down loaded Traveller information issued by the opposite party
Ex.C2: 10.06.2015: E-ticket issued by the opposite party
Ex.C3: 19.06.2015: Boarding Pass
Ex.C4: 20.06.2015: Boarding Pass
Ex.C5: 28.06.2015: Boarding Pass
Ex.C6: 20.06.2015: Railway Ticket
Ex.C7: 26.06.2015: Boarding Pass
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW1 Mr. Ankita Mishra, Asst. Manager-Legal in the OP Company
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Ex.R1: Copy of the Board resolution dated Dec 4, 2014 issued in favour of Saurabh Taneja, Deputy Manager Legal by Op
Ex.R2: The copy of the User Agreement enumerating the terms and conditions as applicable and agreed between the parties
Dated: 04.4.2017 PRESIDENT
