DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 30^th day of December 2023 

                             Filed on: 08/09/2020

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                            President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                               Member

Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                                   Member                                                                   

C C. No. 246/2020

COMPLAINANT

Navaneeth Madhu, Puthenpurackal House, Muvattupuzha, Kerala-686 661

(By Adv.Tom Joseph, Court Road, Muvattupuzha-686 661)

Vs.

OPPOSITE PARTY

M/s.Make My Trip Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office, DLF Building No.5, Tower B, DLF Phase 2, Sector-25, Gurugram, Haryana -122 002 Rep. by its Managing Director/CEO

(O.p rep. by Adv.Babu Jose, M/s.C.C.Thomas & Co. Waxwall Lane, Chitoor Road, Kacheripady, Kochi-18)

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 booked a flight ticket through the opposite party on 06.04.2019 for travelling through the route Kochi Mumbai-Ottawa on 24^th April 2019 by Paying Rs. 70,461/-.  But the operator M/s.Jet Airways of the flight had cancelled the trip.  Thereafter the complainant requested the opposite party for refund of the ticket fare.  The complainant had received an e-mail from the opposite party on 09.05.2019 stating that the issue with respect to the ticket was resolved by refund.  The complainant did not receive any refund as mentioned in the e-mail and hence he had sent several communications to the opposite party.  No positive reply received from the complainant.  A lawyer notice was also sent to the opposite party on 23.05.2019.  But the ticket fare has not been refunded to the complainant.  The complainant states that the purposeful omission on the opposite party to refund the ticket fare amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  The complainant had to suffer severe hardships, financial loss and mental agony due to the deficient action of the opposite party.

          Hence the complainant approached this Commission seeking orders directing the opposite party to refund the ticket fare Rs.70461/- together with interest at 12% per annum from 06.04.2019 till realization along with compensation of Rs.20000/-.

2. Notice

Notice was issued to the opposite party from this Commission on 23.09.2020.  Upon notice opposite party appeared and filed their version.

3. Version of the opposite party

The instant complaint is bad in law and cannot be sustained qua the opposite party which is merely a facilitator.  The subject matter of the present dispute is restricted to alleged: non-refund of the cancellation of the confirmed flight booking by Jet Airways which has not been impleaded as a party to the present complaint.  The opposite party merely acts as a facilitator for booking of services from the concerned service providers and are not attribute to any liability for any aspects of the standards of service provided by the concerned service providers.  Admittedly, the opposite party has duly initiated the refund process by raising refund application with the concerned airline ie., Jet Airways.  All refund to be processed under the subject booking shall be made by the concerned Airlines in pursuance of charges duly agreed upon at the time of making the bookings.  At the time of booking of the tickets, the intended traveller duly accepts the terms and conditions of the user agreement.  The intended traveller at the time of booking the tickets also duly consents and adheres to the cancellation policy of the opposite party as well as the concerned airline.  Moreover, the cancellation policy as shared with the confirmed tickets is in consonance with the cancellation terms shared with each customer at the time of booking and the cancellation terms of the airline ie., Jet Airways which has not been impleaded as a necessary party in the instant case.  Make my Trip merely acts as a facilitator to enable the user to book a flight ticket.  The contract of service for utilization of the flight is always between the user and the concerned airline.

          The Director General of Civil Aviation is the governing authority of all the Airlines in India vide its Civil Aviation Requirements, Section 3 Air transport Series ‘M” part II, Issue I dated 22^nd May 2008 bearing file No.23/16/2016-AED specifically vide Clause 3 (C) of the said requirements has held that in case of a passenger/traveller books a ticket through travel agent, onus of refund in case of cancellation of ticket shall lie with the Airlines and not the travel agent and the process of refund shall be completed within 30 working days.  In the present case the concerned Airlines ie., Jet Airways is liable to compensate the complainant for the cancellation of the said confirmed return sector flight booking.

          It is denied that the opposite party has not received any legal notice from the complainant.  The complainant shall be dismissed on ground of non-joinder of necessary parties.

4.  Evidence

The evidence in this case consists of the documentary evidence filed by the complainant which are marked as Exbt.A1 series and A2.  No other evidence from the part of the complainant.  Opposite party has not produced evidence and the case posted for hearing. On verification of records it is seen that the opposite party has produced 7 documents along with the version.  But the documents filed by the opposite party are seen not marked.

Heard.

5. 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?

6. For the sake of convenience we have considered issue Nos. (1) and (2) together.

The complainant is regarding the reluctance on the part of the opposite party to refund the ticket fare in connection with the cancellation of Jet Airways flight.

The evidence in this case consists of the two documentary evidence filed by the complainant.  Ext.A1 (series) are the copies of e-mail communications between the complainant and the opposite party.  Exbt.A2 is only a copy of letter sent by the counsel for the complainant.  There is no signature in Exbt.A2.  Hence cannot be considered as a lawyer notice as stated in the complaint.  As per the E-mail communication dated 09.05.2019 the issue with respect to the ticket was resolved.  The complainant in his complaint states that he did not receive any refund as mentioned in the e-mail and hence he had sent several communications to the opposite party.  But the complainant has not produced any such communications proving his request for refund to the opposite party.  The copy of lawyer notice produced in this case is not reliable. 

     The opposite party in their version states that they have not received any lawyer notice from the complainant.  The complainant has not impleaded Jet Airways as party in this case.  The complainant has not produced any evidence in this case to prove that the Jet Airways has transferred the ticket amount to the opposite party towards the refund of the ticket fare.

The complainant has failed to prove his case by sufficient documents and there is no merit in the instant case. 

          In the case of SGS India Ltd Vs. Dolphin International Ltd 2021 AIR SC 4849 held that:

“19. The onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service. In a Judgement of this Court reported as Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr. 4, this court held that the burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it.”

In the absence of sufficient documents, the issues are found not in favour of the complainant and hence liable to be dismissed and is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open commission on this 30^th day of December 2023.

Sd/-

                                                                   Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

Sd/-

D.B.Binu, President

Sd/-

                                                                   V.Ramachandran, Member

Forwarded/by Order

Assistant Registrar

uk

APPENDIX

Complainant’s evidence

Ext.A1 (series)    -   Copies of e-mail communications between the 

                                complainant and the opposite party. 

Exbt.A2               - Copy of letter sent by the counsel for the complainant

Opposite party’s evidence : Nil