Delhi

East Delhi

CC/226/2018

MIRNAL BHARTI - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAKE MY TRIP - Opp.Party(s)

21 Aug 2023

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. 226/2018

 

	Mrinal Bharti, B-9, Shekhar Apartments, Mayur Vihar Phase-I, Extension, Delhi-110091.	….Complainant
Versus
1.       2.           3.         4.	M/s Makemytrip(India) Pvt. Ltd. DLF Building No. 5, Tower B, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase-2 Sector-25, Gurugram, Haryana-122002, India   Kamal Kishore Avutapalli, Director, M/s Makemytrip(India) Pvt. Ltd. Flat No. 801, Abhas Appt, Post Office Road Opp. Sector-56 Police Station, Sector-56, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002, India   Indresh Kumar Gupta, Director, M/s Makemytrip(India) Pvt. Ltd. Flat No. D-1003 GPL Eden Heights Sector-70, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002, India   Krishna Chandra Nayak, Director, M/s Makemytrip(India) Pvt. Ltd. 1042, Ground Floor, Maruti Vihar, Chakkarpur, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002, India	……OP1           ……OP2         ……OP3         ……OP4

 

Date of Institution: 25.07.2018

Judgment Reserved on: 16.08.2023

Judgment Passed on: 21.08.2023

                       

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

Ms.Rashmi Bansal (Member)

 

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

 

JUDGMENT

 

1. By this order Commission shall dispose of the complaint of the complainant w.r.t. alleged deficiency in cancelling the booked an air ticket by the OP.
2. It is interalia mentioned in the complaint that the complainant booked air ticket with the OP at its Air India Flight AI144 having scheduled departure of 1700 hrs on 05.11.2017 using the website having PNR No. JK9HV and made payment of Rs. 4,754/- to the OP on its website using online payment mode which was confirmed by the OP by email/message however due to some prior engagement of the complainant, he made an enquiry by calling OPs customer care service desk thereby asking if there is any possibility to reschedule the said booking to later flight which was scheduled to departure on 1900 hrs, upon which she received a message that such transfer would cost extra for which the complainant agreed. The complainant thereafter received another call from OP stating that transfer is not possible, and for that the complainant has to cancel his already existing ticket and also that complainant would get no refund in case, ticket is cancelled and thereafter the complainant told the said executive that no further changes is required and he will be boarding his scheduled flight and accordingly the complainant arrived at Airport but when he was going through security check-in he was informed that his ticket  has been cancelled and it caused a great embarrassment to him as he had no prior information w.r.t. the cancellation of his ticket and he only had put an enquiry at the customer service. The cancellation of his ticket abruptly amounts to negligence on the part of OP as well as deficiency in service. After so many repeated calls to the OP, he was never heard and ultimately he has to buy another ticket from Air India Counter at the Mumbai Airport. It is further stated that cancellation of his ticket without any information amounts to fraud, negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of OP, and accordingly he has filed the present complaint case against OP, after serving legal notice by calling upon the OP to pay Rs. Rs. 4,754/- alongwith interest @18% p.a. alongwith compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- and litigation charges of Rs. 25,000/-.     
3. The OP has filed its reply taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable either on facts or in law and it is submitted that without pre-judice to the rights of the OP, the present claim is flagrant abuse of the process of law and there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP, complaint is otherwise bad for mis-joinder of parties as OP2, OP3 & OP4 who are director of OP1 are not necessary parties, the complainant before succeeding must prove the actual loss suffered due to any of the act on the part of OPs, if any, the claim of compensation is highly exaggerated which is otherwise denied and complaint is without any cause of action.
4. It is further submitted that OP has just acted as a facilitator in booking the  airline ticket for complainant from Mumbai to Delhi and in the present matter complainant visited website of OP and it is interalia stated that after complainant chose the available flight, reflecting on the portal the booking was also automatically generated as soon as the request was processed by the complainant and in this entire process no manual or human interference is required and ticket is generated on the basis of details fed by the complainant on the website portal. It is further stated that on 05.11.2017 i.e. the day of departure, the complainant called on the customer care number of OP and made request for rescheduling his flight from 1700 hrs to 1900 hrs and in this respect since customer care representative advised him to pay Rs. 3,025/- for rescheduling the flight but later-on rectified his error thereby categorically informing the complainant that since request was being made within 24 hrs of departure of scheduled flight, it was not possible to reschedule the flight and suggested the complainant to cancel the flight for 1700 hrs and make fresh booking for flight departuring at 1900 hrs. The complainant gave the consent and confirmed her cancellation of his confirmed ticket for the flight which was having departure time as 1700 hrs, and informed the complainant that fresh booking would be made by herself after checking/comparing other flights on the portal and based on the consent received from the complainant, the OP cancelled the ticket and since the booking was cancelled within 24 hrs of the departure, no refund was claimable by the complainant and nothing wrong has been done by OP, rather booking has been cancelled on the request of complainant herself as such there is no deficiency on the part of OP and accordingly the complaint is liable to be dismissed which may be dismissed.
5. On merit all such facts are reiterated and it is prayed that complaint of the complainant be dismissed. Recording of conversation has also been placed on record by the OP.
6. Complainant did not file rejoinder although filed his evidence. OP has filed evidence of Sh. Bhupinder Singh Virdi, Executive-Legal & Authorised Officer of the OP.
7. The Commission has heard the arguments and perused the record.
8. The facts, are not much disputed i.e. the complainant booked an air ticket from the OP in Air India Flight, for an amount of Rs. 4,754/- given by complainant to the OP, complainant requested for rescheduling the ticket, the OP initially agreed to that but again informed that rescheduling at 1900 hrs is not feasible being the request is made within 24 hrs from the time of flight, the ticket was got cancelled and complainant had to book another ticket for his visit. All these facts are not in dispute. The controversy is that the complainant alleging that he requested for change/rescheduling of booked ticket, but when the OP told that no refund would be available, the complainant did not cancel the ticket and rather reached the airport to board the pre-scheduled flight, whereas the OP submitted that as per the conversation, the record of which has been placed on record, alongwith affidavit under section 65 (B) of Indian Evidence Act, the complainant told the OP that his ticket be cancelled & it was accordingly cancelled.
9. The Commission has perused the chat which has been filed by the OP, copy of the same has been given to the complainant already and as per the chat record the complainant in the chat at page no. 4 of the typed conversation between the customer care executive and the complainant has specifically stated that his ticket be cancelled. Therefore the onus of the fact that complainant also not request for cancellation of the ticket after this chat has now shifted upon the complainant that if chat is false then he should have filed his own conversation, if recorded. Ld. Counsel appearing for complainant submitted that he does not have any recording but simultaneously does not deny the conversation as held in between the customer care executive and the complainant. However it is informed by the Ld. Counsel for complainant that the OP has not filed complete chat. The Commission is of the opinion that if OP has not filed complete chat, and if there was any withdrawal from his previous statement/request w.r.t. giving instruction to OPs w.r.t. cancellation of the ticket, then the complaint should have put that fact and should have discharged that onus. As per record it has not been done by the complainant and therefore as per the recorded version ticket of the complainant has been cancelled on his specific instructions which is duly recorded. Therefore once the complainant has requested for cancellation of the ticket there cannot be any deficiency on the part of OPs. Therefore complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed & is dismissed accordingly.
3. opy of the Order be supplied/sent to the Parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced on 21.08.2023.