Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/147

Sarabjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Make My Trip - Opp.Party(s)

Sarabjeet Singh Rep.

22 Jul 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 147 dated 13.03.2019.                                                        Date of decision: 22.07.2022.

 

1. Sarabjit Singh Sidhu S/o. S. Kirpal Singh
2. Rajwant Kaur Sidhu W/o. Sarabjit Singh Sidhu
3. Manjit Singh Gill S/o. Late S. Gurnam Singh       
4. Rashpal Kaur Gill W/o. Manjit Singh Gill,
5. Kuldeep Singh Gill S/o. Late S. Gurnam Singh,
6. Paramjit Kaur Gill W/o. Kuldeep Singh Gill, resident of near Gas agency, Pul Sudhar, District Ludhiana.

All 3 to 6 through their power of attorney Sh. Sarabjit Singh Sidhu complainant No.1. ..…Complainant

•  

 

1. Make My Trip India Pvt. Ltd. SCO 33, Malhar Cinema Road, Sarabha Nagar Main Market (Kipps Market) Ludhiana, Punjab-141001 (through its Manager)
2. Make My Trip India Pvt. Ltd., 18^th Floor Tower A, B and 19^th Floor, A, B, C, Building No.5, DLF Cyber City, Phase-III, Gurgaon (through its Manager)
3.  Make My Trip India Pvt. Ltd., 19^th Floor, Tower A, B, C, Epitome Building No.5, DLF Cyber City, Phase-III, Gurgaon-122002 (through its Manager)
4. Indigo Airlines Head Office, Level 1, Tower C, Global Business Park, Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon, Haryana, India-122002 (through its General Manager)      
5. Ms. Shamika Kulkarni authorized Signatory, Legal Department, Make My Trip India Pvt. Ltd., 18^th Floor Tower A, B and 19^th Floor, A, B, C, Epitome Building No.5, DLF Cyber City, Phase-III, Gurgaon-122002.                                                                          …..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection    Act, 1986.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Gursewak Singh, Advocate.

For OP1 to OP3 and OP5        :         Sh. Manish Mann, Advocate.

For OP4                         :         Sh. Kanwar Nain Singh Grewal, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the case of complainant No.1 and 2 is that they are retired government employees and senior citizens and complainant No.3 to 6 are the relatives of OP1 andOP2 who have authorized complainant No.1 and 2 to file the present complaint on their behalf.

2.                It is further alleged that all the complainants jointly booked a tour package of 4 nights from Delhi to Port Blair and Havelock with a visit to Elephant beach from 02.11.2018 to 06.11.2018 vide booking ID No.NL 2106441458225. The booking was made through OP1 to OP3. An amount of Rs.2,52,427/-  was paid to the OPs by the complainant for the entire trip which included travelling by air from Delhi to Port Blair, stay in hotels, ferries and providing vehicles for pick & drop including sightseeing. OP1 to OP3 made arrangements via Indigo Airline for traveling from Delhi to Port Blair from 02.11.2018 at 04.55 AM with two hour stay at Hyderabad and the flight was supposed to reach Port Blair on the same day at 10.30 AM. The complainants reached Delhi on 01.11.2018 for the morning flight of 02.11.2018 but there was no arrangement of the flight as the scheduled flight has cancelled. The OPs did not arrange any other flight. The OPs demanded another sum ofRs.50,000/- for arranging other morning flight for 02.11.2018 even though they are bound by the terms and conditions of the tour package. In this manner, the entire programme of 02.11.2018 was spoiled and went in vain without any fault on the part of the complainant who had to hire a hotel at Delhi to stay on 1^st and 2^nd November 2018.

3.                It is further alleged that the OPs later on arranged the flight at 22.35 (10.35 PM) with stoppage of 6 hours at Hyderabad and 1 hour at Chennai during odd hours of night. Due to negligence and harassment created on the part of the OPs, the complainants reached Port Blair on 03.11.2018 at 11.00 AM. In this regard, one night of the tour package was completely wasted and five complainants who were senior citizens had to face a lot of inconvenience while travelling odd hours in night with prolonged stay at the different airports.  In this regard, the complainant sent an email to Ankit Anand of the OP company but he gave a very rude reply that the company was not responsible for the flights.

4.                It is further alleged in the complaint that as per the tour program of the OPs, the visit to Elephant beach was included in the package. However later on, Ms. Sarada Yada, an employee of the OPs told the complainants that they have to pay extra charges for this visit. On the contrary, the representative of the company at Port Blair refused saying that this place was not included in the tour. The complainants have to pay extra charge for visit to Elephant beach.

5.                It is further alleged that the complainants reached Port Blair from Havelock on 05.11.2018 but there was no representative of the company at the airport. The complainants contacted the local representative of the OP company who misbehaved with the complainants. Even the driver of the vehicle provided by the OP company stopped the vehicle many times on the road and in between the dense forests. This was brought to the notice of the officials of the OP company but no action was taken. The complainants were also not taken to light and sound program at Cellular Jail  as per the trip program nor any vehicle was provided on the way back from hotel to airport and the complainants had to arrange a rented vehicle on their own expenses to reach airport from hotel. Thus, the Ops have spoiled the entire tour of the complainants and wasted the money of the complainants. A legal notice dated 03.12.2018 was served upon the OPs whereby they were requested to refund the whole amount but to no avail. It is a clear cut case of deficiency of service on the part of the OPs which has resulted in harassment, pain and mental agony to the complainants. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to refund the entire amount received from the complainants along with interest @18% per annum and the OPs be further made to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

6.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the joint written statement filed on behalf of the OP1 to OP3 and OP5, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of law and the complaint has been filed with a malafide intention. According to the OPs, the OP Company provides all tour related services to its customer at a very competitive prices. The OP company merely acts as a facilitator for flight booking on behalf of the customer with the concerned service providers and all the transactions by the users of website of the OP are governed by the website’s and application’s user agreement and every intended traveler has to enter into an E-contract with the OPs by consenting to the terms and conditions of the OPs. It has further been admitted that the complainants booked a package for Port Blair  & Havelock  from 02.11.2018 to 06.11.2018 for a sum of Rs.2,52,427/-. The OP company is not liable or responsible for any deficiency caused on behalf of the airlines. Once the confirmed booking has been shared with the customer, the OP company stands discharged from its obligations and duties qua the booking. It has further been pleaded that the OP company shared the complete details of the hotel, flight, hospitality, other service providers along with contact details  with the complainants at the time of booking of the package and they gave consent to the terms and conditions of the OPs. According to the OPs, the complainants have wrongly impleaded the OPs as party in the present complaint despite the fact that as a goodwill gesture, the OPs had already compensated the complainants with one service of Elephant Rides for a total sum of Rs.7190/-. The services were availed by the complainant though the said services were not included in the holiday package as given in the brochure of the said package. As regards the rescheduling of the air flights, as per the guidelines dated 22.05.2008 of Director General of Civil Aviation, the airline is liable to compensate the complainants for rescheduling of the flights booking for which the OPs cannot be blamed. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

7.                In a separate written statement filed on behalf of OP4, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the parties. According to OP4, Indigo flight No.6E-765/293 on which the complainants were booked to travel from New Delhi to Port Blair on 02.11.2018 connecting Hyderabad was cancelled on 31.10.2018 on account of operation reasons beyond the control of InterGlobe Aviation Limited. The intimation of cancellation of the flight was sent to the complainants immediately the same day by way of SMS on the complainant’s mobile number and an email was also sent to the complainants on 31.10.2018 at 03.29 hours as well as 18.57 hours. Once the flight was cancelled, OP4 provided an alternative flight to the destination subject to availability. The complainants voluntarily opted to travel on board the IndiGo Flight No.6E-767/188 on 31.10.2018. The complainants have not placed on record any evidence showing that information regarding rebooking was not provided to them. InterGlobe Aviation Limited acted as per contract and duly informed the complainants of cancellation of the flight and also rebooked the complainants on an alternate flight. It has been denied if OP4 demanded the alleged amount of Rs.50,000/- for arranging alternative e flight. In fact, no additional amount was paid by the complainants in the flight No.6E-767/188 on which they were rebooked to their destination. Thus, the complainants have successfully availed the services of OP4 willingly and voluntarily without any objection on the date of travel 02.11.2019. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

8.                In evidence, the complainant No.1 tendered his affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex- C1 to Ex- C18 and closed the evidence.

9.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP1 to OP3 and OP5 tendered affidavit of Sh. Ekank Mehra, Deputy Manager (Legal) of OP1 to OP3 and OP5 along with documents Annexure-1 to Annexure-4 submitted with the written reply and closed the evidence. The counsel for OP4 tendered affidavit Ex. OP4/A of Sh. Rahul Kumar, Associate General Counsel of OP4 along with documents Ex. OP4/1 to Ex. OP4/6 and closed the evidence.

10.               We have heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and written submission on behalf of OP4 and have also gone through records.

11.              In this case, the grievance of the complainants is that firstly the flight schedule to leave on 02.11.2018 at 04.55 AM was cancelled and alternative flight on the same day at 10.30 PM was provided with the result one full day was spoiled in travelling and in addition to this, the complainants had to face a lot of in-convenience at the airport due to delayed flight. In addition to this, it has further been argued by the counsel for the complainants that stay in hotels, ferries and providing vehicles for pick & drop including sightseeing was also not provided though it was included in the package. It has further been contended by the counsel for the complainants that on 05.11.2018, the driver demanded money from the complainants for dropping them at the air port. In addition to this, light and sound programme was also not provided to the complainants and no taxi was provided from the hotel to Port Blair airport.

12.              As regards the delay in the flight or rescheduling of the flight, it has been contended by OP4 that the flight was cancelled on account of operational reasons beyond the control of OP4 and information was duly given to the complainants who agreed to avail another flight on the same day at 10.35 PM. However, the fact remains that due to rescheduling of the flight, not only lot of in-convenience was caused to the complainant but by cancellation/rescheduling of the flight, one full day of the tour package was spoiled. If the flight had not been changed, the complainants would have reached Port Blair at about 11.00 in the morning and they could have utilized the whole day for sightseeing or other purposes. Thus, by rescheduling the flight from 04.55  in the morning to 10.35 PM in the evening, the very purpose of the package tour was defeated and at least one full day was spoiled. Under the circumstances, in our considered view, it would be just ad proper if OP4 is made to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the deficiency of services on its part.

13.              Apart from this, the complainants have alleged that in the package brochure, a visit to Elephant beach was included and the same was also confirmed by the booking employee by the OP namely Sarada Yada. However, later on, the complainants were made to pay the extra charges for this package and water facility was not provided to the complainant and the representative of the OPs stated that it was not the part of the package. In this regard, it is pertinent to point out that in the brochure Ex. C1 which includes the itinerary there is a reference to an excursion to Elephant beach by boat but the brochure is silent as to whether visit would be free of cost or not. However, it is clearly mentioned that the visit to elephant beach would be included, only if it has been picked up as an activity in the package and the removal of the activity would  make the tourist ineligible for the same. It is further evident from the brochure that during the visit from Port Blair to Havelock, only ferry tickets were included in the package and all other expenses were to be borne by the complainants. Therefore, the OPs were not liable to provide any water activities at the cost. Moreover, it has not been clearly mentioned in the complainant as to whether the complainants were taken to Elephant beach or not. Therefore, the complainants cannot be held entitled for anything on this account.

14.              So far as the light and sound show at Cellular Jail is concerned, as per the itinerary given in the brochure it was scheduled on the first day of 02.11.2019 itself but due to delay in the flight the same seems to have been missed out. Since the delay in the flight is attributable to OP4, OP1 to OP3 andOP5 cannot be held responsible for the same.

15.              As regards the non supply of taxi for reaching airport, in the brochure Ex. C1, it is clearly mentioned that the car for intra/intercity transfers covering Port Blair, Havelock Port Blair would be included in the trip. If the complainants were not provided taxi and they had to pay from their own pocket, it is definitely a clear deficiency of service on the part of OP to OP3 and in our considered view, it would be just and proper if OP1 to OP3 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- to the complainants on this account.

16.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with a direction to OP1 to OP3 to pay a composite cost of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand Only) to the complainant and OP4 is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only)  to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. However, the complaint as against OP5 is dismissed. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

17.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:22.07.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Sarabjit Singh Sidhu Vs Makemytrip                              CC/19/147

Present:       Sh. Gursewak Singh, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Manish Mann, Advocate for OP1 to OP3 andOP5.

                   Sh. Kanwar Nain Singh Grewal, Advocate for OP4.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with a direction to OP1 to OP3 to pay a composite cost of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand Only) to the complainant and OP4 is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only)  to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. However, the complaint as against OP5 is dismissed. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:22.07.2022.

Gobind Ram.