Delhi

East Delhi

CC/53/2016

DR.BHUPINDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAKE MY TRIP - Opp.Party(s)

11 Jul 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No. CC/53/2016

 

1.	DR. BHUPINDER SINGH KALRA S/O SH. SURENDER SINGH R/O B-11, F-2, RAMPRASTHA GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH	….Complainant
Versus
2.	M/S MAKE MY TRIP INDIA PVT. LTD. OFFICE AT F-26, FIRST FLOOR, CONNAUGHT PLACE, INNER CIRCLE, OPPOSITE PALIKA BAZAR, NEW DELHI - 110001	……OP

 

 

Date of Institution: 30.01.2016

Judgment Reserved on: 05.07.2022

Judgment Passed on: 11.07.2022

                  

CORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Ms. Ritu Garodia (Member) – on leave

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

 

Order By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGEMENT

1. By this Order I shall dispose off present complaint of the complainant with respect to deficiency in service with regard to not getting the tour finalized despite having taken Rs. 30,000/ - from him and then by not returning the advance amount.
2. The brief facts stated by the complainant in the complaint are that he had booked Air ticket for himself and his family for destination from New Delhi to Sri Lanka with scheduled dates of journey as 02.01.2016 and paid Rs  30000 / - to the OP on 19.11.2015.  However, when complainant contacted OP on 29.12.2015 he informed him that the Air Ticket booking has been cancelled for the reason "hand written Passport" and Visa cannot be obtained on the same and since Visa could not have been obtained the tickets has been cancelled. The complainant there after regularly had been asking the OP to return the amount of Rs. 30,000 / - taken by him for providing all the services with respect to his family visit to Sri Lanka but the OP is not returning the amount and as such he filed the present complaint with prayer that the :

1. To pass an order directing to the opposite party to refund the booing amount of Rs. 30,000 to the complainant.
2. To pass the directions for the monetary compensation Rs. 1,00,000 / - towards the mental agony, harassment and loss of reputation apart from the booking amount. Above all the order for reimbursement of litigation cost for the unnecessary litigation to the tune of Rs. 40000/-,
3. To pass an order, as may deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the present complaint adjudication.

3. OP was served and has filed its reply by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable on the ground that it has been filed on the basis of conjectures and surmises, it is misconceived, vexatious and misleading, it is an abuse of the process of law, it is not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act, it is malafide with intention to extract money from the OP and the complaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 ( a ) of CPC .
4. On merit it is stated that OP is only a facilitator and he facilitates arranging the tickets for consideration and in this matter complainant had made booking and had paid Rs. 30000/- on 19.11.2015 with respect to his forthcoming tour to Sri Lanka , the total value of the package was Rs . 1,34,678 / - and he only paid Rs. 30,000/ -, the OP discharged its liability by making all arrangement for the said tour booked by the complainant but the complainant could not utilize the said tour booked by him on account of denial of Visa by the Ministry, in which the OP had no role and this led to cancellation of the tour.  The complainant was informed that he cannot take up the tour in question being there was some fault in his passport and as such the amount paid by complainant of Rs. 30,000/- has been forfeited by the complainant by OP as per the terms and conditions agreed at the time of booking and since the amount has been forfeited as per agreement, no deficiency can be attributed to the OP, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
5. The complainant has filed his Rejoinder in which he has stated that OP is trying to mislead this Commission that the complainant is not a consumer under the law.  The OP cannot forfeit the entire amount as there was no fault on the part of complainant, all the formalities with respect to his visit were undertaken by the OP and copy of all the documents were provided to the OP along with the booking amount therefore the contents of written statement of OP were denied and contents of complaint was reiterated re - affirmed as correct.
6. Complainant has filed his evidence by way of Affidavit and has exhibited the communications and e - mails which are exhibit CW - 1 / 1 and exhibit CW1/2.
7. OP has filed his evidence and has exhibited the copy of Board resolution dated 04.01.2016 as exhibit OPW/A, a copy of user agreement containing the terms and conditions as OPW/B.
8. The Commission has heard the arguments and perused the record. Most of the facts are admitted i.e. the complainant approached the OP for his tour to Sri Lanka, paid Rs. 30,000/ - to it in advance, the tour could not be finalized on account of the passport of the complainant had some hand written notings, or it was a hand written passport, and amount was not returned by the OP.
9. The contention of complainant is that the passport was shown to the OP with all informations and if the OP would have conveyed to the complainant before taking the amount of  Rs. 30,000 / - that his passport is ' hand written ' and Visa cannot be obtained on the same, the complainant would not have paid Rs. 30,000/- to the OP and despite having knowledge of the documents of the complainant, the OP malafidely took Rs. 30,000 / - from him and subsequently told him that Visa could not be obtained for the reason ' a hand written passport '  It is further argued that OP is a well reputed company in arranging the tour and travels where as the complainant is a laymen and if the complainant was not aware of this technical aspect, the OP who is engaged in this business and claims to be renowned tour operator in the country should have known this fact and would not have mislead the complainant or at least could have told him that the hand written passports have been disallowed and discontinued for the purpose of Visas and then complainant would have given a second thought for his such visit on that Passport.  He has further argued that for the sake of argument, even if it is presumed that OP has given or has pretended to have given certain facilities then it cannot be said that whole amount would be forfeited by him and as far as the terms of agreements are concerned it is stated that it has never been signed by him and therefore the OP is liable to return the amount.
10. On the other hand the OP has contended that as per its written statement (although it was not been able to argue the matter at final stage and had stopped appearing for one reason or the other) the amount has been forfeited as per the agreed rules and therefore the forfeited amount cannot be returned.
11. The Commission has gone through both these contentions and this Commission is of the opinion that OP has not been able to prove that under which clause he had forfeited the whole amount of Rs.30,000/-.  Although, it is not disputed that the OP would have rendered some services to the complainant for obtaining his Visa or for getting his tickets yet the OP has not been able to prove on record by placing any document to show as to how much amount was spent in booking the ticket for the complainant and how much amount he got returned after cancellation of such tickets, how much fee he paid for getting the Visa for the complainant to Sri Lanka and how much are his individual / professional charges. No such document is filed on record and apart from a bald statement that entire amount of Rs. 30,000/- have been forfeited there is no other corroborative document. This does not appear to be logical or reasonable.  OP could have deducted 10 % or 20 % towards the services charges which he provided to the complainant in obtaining the tickets of the complainant, in getting the hotel booking of the complainant at Sri Lanka and Visa Application Fee while applying to the Embassy concerned but he cannot, without any bifurcation of such charges forfeit the entire amount of  Rs. 30,000/- and this tentamounts to Unfair Trade Practice.  OP was duty bound to give details with respect to the services tendered, the amount so spent on such services and the amount of  his professional charges for providing such services and should have returned / refunded the remaining amount to the complainant. However in this case there is no bifurcation of all such heads as to what amount OP spent for arranging the tour for the complainant to Sri Lanka. In fact OP has not filed even a single document to show that it ever applied for Visa of the complainant to the Embassy, it ever booked any ticket for the family of the complainant to Sri Lanka and if yes from which Airline, it has not filed any document where he made arrangement of hotels for complainant in Sri Lanka and how he would arrange the logistics of such tour of the complainant to Sri Lanka.  Apart from bald statement there is no supportive document on Commission’s file which may entitle OP for such forfeiture of the amount.   In the considered opinion of the Commission, this amount to Unfair Trade Practice on the part of  OP.  Further, OP also has not been able to rebut the contention of the complainant, that complainant had never signed such alleged User Agreement.
12. Accordingly, keeping in view all the facts, this Commission is of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP and the act of the OP also falls within the Unfair Trade Practice and he is not at all legally entitled to forfeit the entire amount.  Accordingly, the Commission hereby orders OP as follows :

1. To refund Rs. 22,500 / - i.e. 75 % of the amount of  Rs. 30,000 / taken by him from the complainant along with interest @ 9 % p.a. on this amount w.e.f  date of filing the complaint i.e. 30.01.2016.
2. To pay litigation charges of Rs. 5,500 / - to the complainant. 

13.  This order be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.
14. Copy of the order be supplied / sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.
15. File be consigned to Record Room. 

DELHI

 

 

 

(On leave) (Ritu Garodia) Member

(Ravi Kumar) Member

(S.S. Malhotra) President