DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 18th day August, 2023
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of filing 29/09/2020
CC/116/2020
Deepu.M,
S/o Mohanarajan,
Sreesailam House,
Melemuri, Industrial Estate (PO)
Olavakkode - Complainant
(By Adv. K.Nimisha & Adv.Sunilkumar.S)
Vs
1. Make My Trip India Pvt.Ltd.,
DLF Buildig No.5, Tower B,
DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase 2,
Sector 25, Gurugram,
Hariyana.
(By Adv.K.R.Hari Iyer)
2. Interglobe Aviation Ltd.(Indigo)
Level –1, Tower-C
Global Business Park,
Mehrauli Road,
Gurugram Road,
Hariyana - Opposite parties
(By Adv.C.G.Hari)
O R D E R
By Sri.Krishnankutty.N.K., Member.
1. Pleadings of the Complainant.
The complainant booked 2 tickets for the Indigo flight on 24/2/2020 from Kochi to Mumbai through the online platform of OP1 paying Rs.5596/-. While travelling from Palakkad to Kochi to catch the said flight, he got a message from the OP2 stating that the tickets were cancelled. When contacted the OP1 over phone, they first admitted that it has happened due to some technical error, but did not make any arrangement for his travel. Hence he had to travel by the same flight by taking fresh tickets spending Rs.29012/- Though the complainant contacted the customer care of 1st opposite party several times, they have not refunded the air fare sofar. Hence he approached this Commission seeking refund of Rs.5596/- being the flight charge collected by OP1 along with compensation of Rs.29012/- for financial loss, Rs.5,00,000/- for mental agony and Rs.10,000/- as cost.
2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties, they entered appearance and filed their version. The common contention of the opposite parties is that the tickets were voluntarily cancelled by the complainant through OP1 and the eligible refund as per their cancellation policy has already been made to the complainant.
3. Following issues were framed for consideration on the basis of the pleadings of the complainant and opposite parties.
- Whether the flight tickets were cancelled as per the cancellation request raised from the complainant’s account as alleged by opposite parties ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief claimed ?
- Reliefs as to cost and compensation.
4. The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Ext.A1 to A5 as evidence. Ext.A1 is the tax invoice for the air tickets booked, along with the ticket issued by opposite parties. A2 is the Tax invoice issued by OP2, A3 is the credit note, A4 is the flight tickets with PNR No. PEWRUI and A5 is the new tickets booked for the journey to Mumbai. Ext.A4 and A5 were objected to as the ground that they were not accompanied by Section 65(B) certifications. Since this Commission is not bound by IEA and there was no allegation that they are forged documents, the objection was overruled. The OP1 filed proof affidavit and marked Ext.B1 as evidence. OP2 marked Ext.B2 to B5 as evidence. Ext.B4 and B5 were objected to on the ground that they are screen shots. The opposite parties were directed to file documents separately and complete the docketing within 15 days, failing which they will be rejected. But the opposite parties failed to comply with the order and as such the documents were not taken as record.
Issue 1&2
5. Though the opposite parties claim that the request for cancellation of the tickets was made from the account of the complainant, they have not produced any document to convincingly prove the same. Further it is very hard to believe that a person travelling by train along with wife to catch the flight, would cancel the tickets just a few hours before the boarding time and travel by the same flight spending a huge amount. Further the OPs have not adduced any evidence to prove that the refund of the amount as per the cancellation policy has been made by them to the complainant.
6. Hence, in the absence of any evidence to prove that the cancellation of tickets was done voluntarily and willingly by the complainant, the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties stand proved. Further the refund amount (as per the cancellation policy) said to have been made by the OP2 has also not been received by the complainant. In this context we hold both the opposite parties liable for the deficiency in service.
7. In the result, the complaint is allowed and the following orders are passed.
- The OPs are liable jointly and severally to refund Rs.5596/- along with interest of @ 10% p.a from 06/12/2019 till the date of payment.
- The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.29012/- being the financial loss suffered by the complainant and a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental agony suffered.
- The complainant is entitled to get Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation from the Opposite parties.
Pronounced in open court on this the 18th day of August, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
Appendix
Documents marked from the side of the Complainant:
Ext.A1: Copy of Tax invoice No.10000000078840642 dated 06/12/2019
Ext.A2: Copy of Tax invoice No.KL1192012A075746 dated 06/12/2019
Ext.A3: Tax invoice No.KL1192012AO75746 dated 06/12/2019
Ext.A4: E-mail copy of ticket confirmation by OP2
Ext.A5: Message of OP2 for cancel the flight ticket.
Documents marked from the side of opposite party: Nil
Witness examined: Nil
Cost: 25,000/-
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
