View 823 Cases Against Make My Trip
Surender Singh filed a consumer case on 12 Apr 2019 against MAke My Trip in the West Delhi Consumer Court. The case no is CC/14/753 and the judgment uploaded on 15 Apr 2019.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST).
150-151; COMMUNINTY CENTER ; C-BLOCK; JANAK PURI; NEW DELHI
CASE NO. 753/2014
Sh. Surender Singh Dagar,
R/o C-557, Vikas Puri,
New Delhi-110018 ..…. Complainant
VERSUS
M/s Make My Trip (India) Pvt. Ltd.
UG-07, Front Side,
TDI Shopping Mall
Rajouri Garden
New Delhi- 110027 ….Opposite Party
O R D E R
K.S. MOHI, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant and other three members of his family had booked with Opposite Party a North East Delux Package after negotiations with its Executive Mr. Rakesh Sharma the package was described as “North East Delight with Lachung” the package was negotiated at the rate of Rs.29,500/- ( Rupees Twenty Nine Thousand Five Hundred only ) per person. According the itinerary of package the OP was as under:-
The complainant further alleged that on May 20,2014he alongwithhis family members received the voucher , it was very shockingthat the OPbooked hopping flightwhereas in thepackage there wasno mentionthat OPwould be providing hopping flight and made twohours journey to more than four hour journeythereby wastingthe valuabletime of thecomplainant.It is further alleged by complainant that on arrival at Bagdograrairport , the vehicleprovidedby OP was very old, making full of noise and was not as per terms and conditions of the agreement. The complainant further submitted that as per vouchers three days stay at Gangtok , OPhas bookedtwodays at Central Hotel, Gangtok and one dayat Summit Ttakshang ResidencyHotel.The complainantand his family membersasked OP toconfirm vehiclefor journey to Lachaungon 24.05.2014but the vehiclefailed to arrive, as a resultthe complainant and his family members failed to go to Lachaung and alsoon way site-seeinghave been spoiled. Even at Darjleeingthe hotel booked by OPfor complainant was 20 km. away from Darjeeling. Thedriver of vehicle refused to take them to “JagjeetHotel”. This causedmental agony to the complainanton account of aforesaid deficiencyin servicethe complainanthas sought the refund of Rs. 1,18,000/-and compensation for harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses.
2. OP filed reply by taking preliminary objection that OP being the booking facilitator duly discharged its limited liability inter-alia by arranging the trip in question for complainant. On merits it has been admitted that complainant had booked trip with OP for which OP charged 29,500/- per person. It is further submitted the OP nowhere stated that flight tickets arranged by OP would not be hopping flight also the complainant have not supported the alleged deficiency on part of the OP by any cogent proof. The hotel arranged by OP at Gangtok and Darjleeing as per web-site were three star property. Therefore, the complaint of the complainant deserves dismissal.
3. Complainant has filed his affidavit affirming the facts alleged in the complaint. He mentioned documents in support of his evidence Ex CW 1/1 to Ex CW 1/10. On the other hand Shri Saurabh Taneja, Deputy Manager- Legal & Authorised Officer filed affidavit in evidence on behalf of O.P testifying all the facts as stated in the written statement. Both parties also filed its respective written submission.
4. We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. It is not in dispute that complainant had booked tour with OP for a total sum of Rs. 1,18,000/-. The complainant has alleged deficiency on part of the OP detailed in para 6 to 16 of complaint. However, OP has replied para 6 to 15 with specifically denying quantum to deficiency alleged by complainant in the complaint. It is now well settled law that if any allegation in the complaint is not specifically denied it shall be deemed to be admitted by the opposite party . The OP has not clearly denied as to why 2 nights instead of 3 nights stay at Gangtok was booked. The OP has not explained the allegation of spoiling the tour of complainant with regard to the visit to Lachung. Similarly the other deficiency pointed out by the complainant in the complaint has not been satisfactorily explained in the written statement of OP, therefore, we conclude that more or less it appears to be a case of admission on part of the OP. However, otherwise if we glance at the itinerary it stands substantiated that OP committed deficiency in providing service to complainant. It is true that if a family plans a tour it goes out with all the hope of ample excitement, ecstasy and fun on the trip and when the agreed facilities /services are not provided by the tour operator as being done by OP in the present case the whole enjoyment crumbles comes to the ground.
7. Keeping in view the discussion stated above we allow the complaint . In order to meet the ends of the justice we award a sum of Rs. 75,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses.
Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.
File be consigned to the record room.
Announced this__12TH____ day of __April _____ 2019.
( K.S. MOHI ) (PUNEET LAMBA)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.