Orissa

Cuttak

CC/57/2021

Srikanta Dash - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

K K Sahoo & associates

07 Feb 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                             C.C.No.57/2021

          Srikant Dash,

           S/O:Late Jagabandhu Dash,

           Resident of At Pareswar Sahi,P.O:College Square,

           Dist:Cuttack-75300.                                                ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

1.               Make My Trip Pvt. Ltd.,

At:DLF Building No.5,

Tower B,DLF Cyber City,Phase-2,

                          Sector- 25,Gurgram,Haryana-122002

  Represented through its Managing Director. ...Opp. Party.

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    19.03.2021

Date of Order:  07.02.2023

 

For the complainant:            Mr. K.K.Sahoo,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P.               :          Mr. S.P.Mohanty,Advocate.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President            

                                             

          Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that as he was a patient having spinal problem suffering from Cervical Myelopathy, he intended to move to United States for its surgery there.  Accordingly, he had contacted the O.P who was a travel agent with the name and style “Make My Trip Pvt. Ltd”.  Through the O.P he had booked flight ticket from Bhubaneswar to Delhi on 9^th November,2020, again from Delhi to Vancouver on 10^th November,2020 and thereafter from Vancouver to Los Angeles on 10^thNovember,2020.  He had paid the price of those Air tickets of Rs.67,815/-.  After getting those tickets from the O.P through online he had reached Delhi on 9.11.2020 as per his plan but the Delhi Airport authorities had intimated him that his flight from Delhi to Vancouver bearing flight no.UA 8153 was not existing on 10.11.2020.  The complainant thereafter had immediately tried to contact the United Airlines in this aspect but they have referred him to contact Canara Airlines and again he was advised by Canara Airlines to contact to the O.P who had booked his tickets.  The complainant desperately had tried to contact the O.P through the helpline numbers but could not get any response.  Ultimately, after repeated efforts, the complainant could contact the Call Executives of the O.P, but could only get an abysmal and a deplorable remark asking him to wait.  Being disgusted and losing patience, the complainant then had contacted his brother-in-law at United States, who on his part had contacted the United Airlines Office there and it is by the effort of his brother-in-law and the United Airlines a ticket for the complainant was immediately arranged on the next United Airlines flight from Delhi to Los Angeles which was connecting flight through Newark.  Thus, in this manner the complainant could manage to proceed but had to wait all day there at Delhi by booking a room at the” Holiday Inn Express”, New Delhi International Airport.  The health condition of the complainant deteriorated due to such dislocation in the journey.  He had requested the O.P to reimburse the flight expenses as because the ticket booked for him by the O.P was non-operational.  The O.P remained silent without responding to the complainant for which the complainant had issued a legal notice to him on 18.12.2020 and ultimately had to file this case before this Commission seeking from the O,.P the cost of his Air tickets to the tune of Rs.67,815/-, the cost of hotel expenses of Rs.10,732/-, the expenses incurred by him for his conveyance, legal expenses and miscellaneous expenses of Rs.20,000/- and a sum of Rs.19,01,453/- towards his mental and physical agony and loss.  Thus, the complainant has sought for a sum of  Rs.20,00,000/- in total from the O.P by filing this case.

          In order to prove his case, the complainant has filed copies of all the Air tickets as booked in his favour by the O.P, copy of the Air ticket subsequently made in his favour by United Airlines, copy of the hotel bill showing the expenses incurred by him to the tune of Rs.10,732.10p, copies of his medical treatments/prescriptions and copy of the legal notice as sent to the O.P alongwith his complaint petition.

2.       The O.P has contested this case and has filed its written version wherein the O.P admits to be the service facilitator making Air tickets, hotel bookings etc as and when desired and requested by the customers.  But it is the contention of the O.P that the customer is to be abide by the terms and conditions of the“User Agreement”.  The intending traveller is to enter into an E-contract with the O.P by consenting to the terms and conditions of the O.P.  The O.P admis through his written version to have booked the flight tickets of the complainant from Bhubaneswar to Delhi on 9.11.2020 and from Delhi to Vancouver on 10.11.20 and also from Vancouver to Los Angeles on 10.11.20.  He also admits that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.67,815/-.  The O.P has further stated in his written version that since because alternative booking was provided to the complainant on the same day the money as claimed by the complainant cannot be refunded to him.  It is the contention of the O.P that after providing confirmed Air tickets to the complainant he is discharged from the obligations and duties.   The O.P has further mentioned in his written version that being a facilitator he has no control over the actions/inactions on the part of the Airlines.  The allegation of the complainant that he was not informed about the non-operation of the flight from Delhi to Vancouver bearing flight no.UA 8153 on 10.11.20 was not due to the deficiency of the O.P but it was due to the deficiency on the part of the Airlines as it is the responsibility of the Airlines to inform about the non-operation of the said flight on the scheduled date to the passengers.  The O.P has taken the plea that after providing confirmed booking Air tickets to the complainant, the O.P is discharged from any liability. The O.P has further added in his written version that he had offered a sum of Rs.5000/- to the complainant as a good gesture towards the dislocations.  The O.P has urged through his written version that as per the terms and conditions, he provided no guarantee with regard to their quality or benefits, availability of any services etc.  Accordingly, the O.P has urged that he is not liable for any claim whatsoever and the case of the complainant is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.P, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether the case is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ?

iii.        Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P ?

iv.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issue No.iii.

Out of the four issues, Issue no.iii being the most pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

After going through the averments from either sides as made by them in their complaint petition and written version as well, together with the copies of documents as filed, this Commission could know that the complainant had booked flight tickets in order to proceed to America for his spinal injury treatment/operation.  Accordingly, he had applied to the O.P and the O.P after receiving the costs thereof had provided the flight tickets enabling the complainant to proceed from Bhubaneswar to Delhi on 9.11.20 and from Delhi to Vancouver on 10.11.20.  The complainant was informed by the Delhi Airport authorities about the non-operational of the flight from Delhi to Vancouver bearing flight no.UA 8153 on 10.11.20.  After getting such disheartening news, the complainant had tried his best to contact the O.P/his agents through customer care numbers.  It is alleged by the complainant that at such a moment of his peril, the O.P had turned a deaf ear towards him and had never responded his calls.  The complainant was rather asked to wait only by the agents of the O.P whenever he had tried to get in-contact with the O.P as regards to the said dislocation of flight.  He thereafter had informed his bother-in-law at America and had described his plight to him, who on his part had made all the necessary arrangements through the same United Airlines enabling the complainant to proceed that day itself from Delhi to Los Angeles through Newark.  Be that as it may, the O.P do not dispute about such journey of the complainant from Delhi to Los Angeles, about arrangement of flight tickets from Delhi to Los Angeles by the effort of the brother-in-law of the complainant.  The allegation of the complainant is that inspite of his repeated phone calls, the O.P and his agents had not responded well, rather he was advised to wait only.  The plea of the complainant in this score that after providing confirmed Air tickets to the complainant he is discharged from any liability and as it appears, he has tried to shift the burdens of responsibility to the shoulder of the Airlines because of the non-operational of the particular flight on 10.11.20 from Delhi to Vancouver.  The O.P has claimed to be a facilitator only and according to him, the service provider is the Airlines who should have informed the complainant/passenger about the non-operational of the flight UA 8153 on 10.11.20.  By claiming so, the O.P cannot be said here in this case not to be liable because he had only provided confirmed Air tickets to the complainant.  It is the duty of the O.P to facilitate the smooth journey of the complainant and to ensure him well before hand, if any such dislocations as regards to the non-operation of the flight UA 8153 on 10.11.20.  The complainant was completely a stranger to the United Airlines and Canara Airlines and it was the O.P who had booked the tickets of the complainant through the said two Airlines. Thus, it is foremost duty of the O.P to apprise the complainant as regards to the flight timings, rescheduling if any and about the cancellation if any.  The O.P here by providing flight tickets to the complainant cannot escape from the liability as because he has the duty and responsibility to ensure the smooth journey of the complainant and it is he who has done the tickets of the complainant through the said Airlines for whom the complainant is a complete stranger.  He should have enquired into the flight positions, rescheduling of time, postponement/cancellation of the flights and also about the non-operational of the flight and should have informed the complainant well in hand and the negligence attitude shown by the O.P here in this case as alleged by the complainant is quite unbecoming and condemnable.  The O.P urging about the terms and conditions of the E-contract in between himself and the complainant appears to be quite arbitrary, unilaterally made.The O.P had tried to offer a sum of Rs.5000/- to the complainant; which he says, was due to his gesture.  But, it was an oblique effort of the O.P to pacify the matter and nothing else.  This Commission therefore comes to a definite conclusion that infact the O.P was quite callous in his attitude by not providing prompt service to the complainant and has completely failed for doing so.  Thus, this Commission has no hesitation to conclude here that infact there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.P by not providing immediate informations about the cancellation of the flight of the complainant from Delhi to Vancouver on 10.11.20.  Accordingly, this issue goes in favour of the complainant.

Issue no.ii.

The O.P has taken the plea that the case of the complainant is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.  Ofcourse, the O.P has not specified as to who else should have been made party here in this case It seems that the O.P has taken this plea by diverting the attention towards the United Airlines and the Canara Airlines since because they are not added as parties by the complainant here in this case.  As discussed above, the complainant had no nexus with both the said two Airlines and it is the O.P who had booked the flight tickets for the complainant through those Airlines.   Thus, the effort of the O.P in this context appears to be quite vague and it is merely an effort to wriggle out from the liability as cast upon him.  Accordingly, this issue goes in favour of the complainant also.

Issues no.i & iv.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the complainant was definitely put to trouble by the O.P, he had mental agony, sufferings as an ailing patient and had to book a hotel room by spending a sum of Rs.10,732/-.  He had to proceed to Los Angeles from Delhi by getting another flight ticket through Newark.  So considering all these, this Commission opines that infact the case of the complainant is maintainable and the complainant is entitled to a reasonable amount of compensation in this case.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                ORDER

The case is decreed on contest against the O.P.  The O.P is directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards his mental agony and sufferings and also towards the other expenses including the litigation and hotel room of the complainant.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 7^th   day of February,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.          

                                                                                                                   Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                             President

         

 

                                                                                                                          Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                     Member