Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/41/2020

Shubham - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Meenal Garg & Rahul Aggarwal Adv.

20 May 2021

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Complaint case No.	:	41 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	10.02.2020
Date of Decision	:	20.05.2021

 

Shubham s/o Sh. Chander Bhan, r/o House No.675, New Indira Colony, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

 

……Complainant

V e r s u s

1. Makemy Trip India Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office at DLF Building No.5 Tower B, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase 2, Sector 25, Gurugram, Haryana 122002 through its Managing Director.
2. Makemy Trip India Ltd., SCO 169-170, First Floor, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh – 160018.

                                                             .... Opposite Parties

BEFORE:         JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                        MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                        MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

                                               

Argued by (through Video Conferencing):            

Sh. Meenal Garg, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. Gaurav Rana, Advocate for Opposite Parties.

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

                The facts in brief are that the complainant had planned a holiday from 15.11.2018 to 18.11.2018 in Pattaya, Bangkok, as such, he booked his flight tickets on 22.10.2019 from website of Opposite Party No.1 (www.makemytrip.com) to travel from Delhi to Bangkok and also to travel back from Bangkok to Delhi vide booking ID No.NN2117447555672 and confirmed tickets (Annexure P-1).  The complainant also made a prepaid hotel reservation for “JP Villa Hotel, Pattaya” from website of Opposite Party No.1 on 22.10.2019 for staying in Bangkok from 15.11.2019 to 18.11.2019 (Annexure P-2). It was stated that the when the complainant reached Bangkok on 15.11.2019, the immigration officer wanted to check the return flight ticket as well as accommodation arrangements to stay in Bangkok, as the same is a prerequisite for obtaining a visa on arrival. Thereafter, the said immigration officer called the said hotel, was shocked to know that there was no reservation, due to which, the immigration officer did not allow the complainant to exit from Bangkok airport and he was taken to Airport Jail (Detention Centre). The complainant incurred 1040 Thai Bhatt as expenses for staying in airport jail vide receipt. The complainant tried to contact telephonically the helpline of the Opposite Parties numerous times but to no avail. The said immigration officer asked the complainant to return back to India immediately, as such, he called his parents, who contacted the travel agent, who booked his return ticket for 16.11.2019 to travel back from Bangkok to India (Annexure P-4). The complainant immediately reached India on 16.11.2019 and contacted Opposite Party No.1 on registered number, where Mr.Niladari (employee of Opposite Party No.1) admitted the mistake and told that there was some server error, due to which, hotel reservation could not be processed by Opposite Party No.1 as such Opposite Party No.1 would compensate for the said error with a mere amount of Rs.3000/- plus the amount of hotel reservation and the said employee also sent SMS in this regard. On 19.11.2019 Opposite Party No.1 also refunded a sum of Rs.4274/- as hotel booking charges but no compensation was paid. Then, the complainant made various calls and also sent emails to the Opposite Parties to resolve the issue but to no avail. Ultimately, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 28.11.2019, which was duly replied vide letter dated 10.12.2019 and asked for certain details for settlement of the dispute, which was sent vide letter dated 17.12.2019 but the same was not resolved till date. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts, on the part of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act (in short the ‘Act’ only), was filed.

2.                The Opposite Parties in their written version have taken certain preliminary objections that they are not necessary parties. It was stated that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, as their registered office is in New Delhi and also worked for gain in New Delhi and the hotel was booked at Pattaya, therefore, the Commission in New Delhi has the proper jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It was further stated that after issuance of confirmed booking/hotel vouchers, the Opposite Parties discharged their duties and obligations qua the complainant and also paid full amount of the booking i.e. Rs.4649/- and even Opposite Parties offered Rs.3000/- alongwith Future Travel Vouchers “FTV” worth Rs.500/- and the same was accepted by the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant is liable to be dismissed on the ground of mis-joinder of necessary party i.e. JP Villa Hotel, Pattaya.  It was further stated that the Opposite Parties acted merely as a facilitator for booking the confirmed air tickets/hotel bookings on behalf of the customers with the concerned service providers and upon request of the customer, forwarded the same to the concerned hotel/hospitality service providers and on receipt the confirmation from the concerned service providers, the booking ID is generated and confirmed tickets/bookings share with the customer. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties nor they indulged into unfair trade practice.

3.                The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

4.                We have heard the Counsel for the contesting parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

5.                The first objection taken by the Opposite Parties that they are not necessary parties is concerned, the complainant paid hotel booking fee as well as service fee to the Opposite Parties for the purpose of booking the hotel in the name of the complainant and the Opposite Parties had to convey the complainant about the confirmed booking in hotel and after receipt of the hotel booking amount from the complainant through Opposite Parties were required to provide checking in and lodging and other hospitality services to the complainant. In the present case, the Opposite Parties were engaged by the complainant for providing service of online booking of the hotel. Therefore, the Opposite Parties are necessary parties in the present case.

6.                The another allegation regarding non-joinder of the hotel at Pattaya as a party to the present complaint is concerned, it is no doubt true that the said hotel was booked by the complainant through Opposite Parties and there was lot of difference between denial for check-in and denial in booking. Even the said hotel had not denied the complainant from checking in the hotel but had denied that there was any booking in the name of the complainant and confirmation of booking was the service to be provided by the Opposite Parties. Therefore, we are of the view that the there is no need to implead the said hotel at Pattaya as a party in the present case.

7.                The another objection regarding territorial jurisdiction of this Commission is concerned, it is no doubt true that the complainant booked the tickets as well as hotel booking through website of the Opposite Parties, who is also carrying out the business at Chandigarh address whereof has been mentioned in the head-note of this complaint i.e. SCO 169-170, First Floor, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. A similar question with regard to territorial jurisdiction has already been dealt with by this Commission in Ranju Aery Vs. Spice Jet Limited, consumer complaint bearing no.347 of 2015 decided on 29.12.2015, wherein it was held, a  person can file consumer complaint, at a place from where the air tickets have been booked either through internet or physically. Feeling aggrieved, Spice Jet Limited filed Revision Petition No.1396 of 2016, which was dismissed by the Hon’ble National Commission, vide order dated 07.02.2017. Even, the Special Leave Petition filed by Spice Jet Limited, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was also dismissed. Even in the present case, the complainant resides in Chandigarh and whole of the consideration paid in Chandigarh and Opposite Party No.2 is based in Chandigarh. Under these circumstances, since a part of cause of action arose to the complainant within the territory of Chandigarh, this complaint is maintainable before this Commission.       

8.                The next point for consideration before us is as to whether there was fault on the part of the Opposite Parties. The answer, to this, question is in the affirmative. It is the admitted fact that on 22.10.2019 the complainant booked flight tickets for travelling to Bangkok on 15.11.2019 and return from Bangkok on 18.11.2019 using the website of Opposite Party No.1 (Exhibit P-1).  On that date i.e. 22.10.2019 also, the complainant booked JP Pattaya Hotel from website of Opposite Party No.1 (Exhibit RW-3). It is also the admitted fact that the complainant reached Bangkok on 15.11.2019 and due to precondition for visa on arrival, immigration officer wanted to check the hotel booking of the complainant and after checking, it was found that there was no confirmed booking under the name of the complainant. On the same date i.e. 15.11.2019, the complainant booked his return tickets through his parents (Exhibit P-4). However, due to not having confirmed hotel booking, the complainant had to spend a night in the airport jail and pay 1040 THB as expenses (Exhibit P-3). It is also the admitted fact that the complainant reached Delhi on 16.11.2019. On the next day, when the complainant contacted Opposite Party No.1, he was informed that the booking could not go through due to server error between Opposite Parties and JP Pattaya Hotel. It is also admitted fact that total amount of Rs.4274/- was paid back to the complainant in bank account but no compensation was paid. Even the Opposite Parties admitted their mistake as is evident from Exhibit P-6, which reads thus :-

“Mr.Shubham started his journey at 08.15 AM on 15 Nov 2019 from Delhi Airport and arrived in Bangkok in Swarnbhumi Airport at 14.05 PM on the same date and after checking of his booking immigration officer has reflected his check in due to a payment issue between Make my Trip and hotel so we do apologize for the inconvenience the guest was faced and guest has stayed at jail on 15 Nov 2019 – 16 Nov 2019 for 24 hours according to the VOC of guest and on 16 Nov 2019 at 15.05 PM he has returned back from swarnbhumi airport towards Delhi and on 16 Nov 2019 he reached Delhi.”

In view of the afore-extracted paragraph, it is evident that the Opposite Parties admitted their mistake. So, it is clear that there was negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties because the deportation reflected upon the permanent international record of the complainant and he is now doomed to face undue hardship in securing a visa or employment opportunities in other countries. In the present dispute, the Opposite Parties were service providers to the extent that they had to give confirmed booking details to the complainant, whereas, the details of confirmed booking given by the Opposite Parties were not true and they had tried to deceive the complainant by giving him fake details. As such, it is clear that the complainant has suffered a lot due to the negligence of the Opposite Parties, as such, the complainant is certainly entitled for refund of the amount as well as compensation etc.          

9.                No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.

10.              For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted, with costs. The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally are directed, as under:-

1. To refund the amount of Rs.42,308/-, being expenses incurred towards Volvo bus (Chandigarh to Delhi), flight tickets and expenses incurred  at Bangkok airport authority by the complainant, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the amount shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of deposit onwards, till realization.
2. To pay compensation as well as litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, the amount shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint, till realization.

11.              Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

12.              The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

May 20^th, 2021.                                      Sd/-

[RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

[PRESIDENT]

Sd/-

 (PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

Sd/-

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

rb