Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/360/2014

Naresh Gulati - Complainant(s)

Versus

MakeMyTrip India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Kotla, Adv.

05 Jun 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	360 of 2014
Date  of  Institution	:	15.07.2014
Date   of   Decision	:	05.06.2015

 

 

 

 

 

1]  Naresh Gulati son of Late Sh.A.S.Gulati, resident of H.No.34, Sector 5, Chandigarh.

 

2]  Urvashi Gulati wife of Naresh Gulati, resident of H.No.34, Sector 5, Chandigarh.

 

3]  Ragini Gulati daughter of Naresh Gulati, resident of H.No.34, Sector 5, Chandigarh.

 

             …..Complainants

 

Versus

 

1]  MakeMyTrip India Pvt. Ltd., Tower A, SP Infocity 243, Udyog Vihar, Phase-1, Gurgaon, Haryana 122016, India, through Chairman and Group CEO

 

2]  Jet Life (India) Ltd., Jet Air House, 5^th Floor, 13^th Community Centre, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.

 

3]  Jet Lite Civil Air Terminal Zirakpur Road, Chandigarh through its authorised Office.

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

Argued By:  None for the complainants.

Sh.Naveen Sharma, Counsel for Opposite Party-1

Sh.Ashish Rawal, Counsel for OPs No.2 & 3.

 

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU , MEMBER

 

 

          As none appeared on behalf of the complainants on the day of arguments i.e. 20.05.2015, we therefore, proceeded to dispose of this complaint on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) even in the absence of the complainants.

 

2]        The case of the complainants is that they booked Online Air-ticket on 3.1.2014 through Opposite Party No.1 from Delhi to Chandigarh for 16.2.2014 for 16.20 hrs departure from Delhi and arrival at Chandigarh at 17.10 hrs vide Jet Lite Flight No.S2-4238 vide   Ann.P-1.  It is averred that the complainants were on vacation to various destinations in South India and were coming from Chennai to Delhi on 16.2.2014 and accordingly, the said connecting flight from Delhi to Chandigarh was booked with Opposite Party No.1.  However, when the complainants reached Chennai to IGI Airport, Delhi to catch the connecting flight to Chandigarh on 16.2.2014, after waiting for long to get the boarding passes, they were informed that flight has been cancelled, without any advance information or SMS from the airlines.  Even at the counter of Jet Airways the tickets were not made available even after long wait.  Ultimately, the complainants hired private taxi on 16.2.2014 through Easy Transport Solutions from New Delhi to Chandigarh and paid Rs.8275/- (Ann.P-2) and reached Chandigarh middle of the night of 16/17.2.2014.  It is pleaded that the OPs were also holding a public dealing office for the convenience of the general public, but in case of the complainants, the OPs have cheated, misguided and harassed the complainants without any reason fully knowing the fact that there could not be any flight from New Delhi to Chandigarh on 16.2.2014 at 16.20 hrs. as the airport at Chandigarh was to remain closed on Sundays for renovation and still booked the tickets for 16.2.2014 and collected the money for the reasons best known to them.  It is also pleaded that the OPs even did not informed by way of SMS or any other means about the status of the flight, leading the complainants to rush from pillar to post for about 3 hours.  However, the Opposite Party No.1 has refunded the booking amount of Rs.11,397/- to the complainants in their bank account after a month without any interest.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the said act of the OPs as gross deficiency in service.

 

3]       The Opposite Party No.1 has filed the reply and admitted the issuance of air-ticket in question through online. It is submitted that the complaint is not maintainable as this Forum does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. It is averred that as per the specific terms of the User Agreement, agreed upon by the complainants, the scope of services at the end of Opposite Party No.1 is limited upto making confirmed air tickets for the complainants in the desired sectors.  It is also averred that the flight of Chennai – Delhi sector was duly utilized by the complainants and there was no issue with respect to the same.  However, the flight of Delhi – Chandigarh sector was cancelled by the airline i.e. Opposite Party No.2 & 3 directly.  It is pleaded that Opposite Party No.1 has no say in the operations of the concerned airline in question.  If at all the flight in question of Delhi – Chandigarh was cancelled by Opposite Party No.2 & 3 then the liability for the same cannot be burdened upon Opposite Party No.1.  Moreover, the refund of Rs.11397/- has already been made directly to the complainants towards booking cost of Delhi – Chandigarh sector which was cancelled by OPs No.2 & 3 airlines. It is also pleaded that Opposite Party No.1 as a customer centric approach can also reimburse the cost incurred by complainants for arranging the cab for Delhi to Chandigarh to the tune of Rs.8275/-.  Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

         The OPs No.2 & 3 have filed joint reply and admitted the booking of air ticket of the complainant for travel on 16.2.2014 from Delhi to Chandigarh. The Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 have also taken identical objection with regard to territorial jurisdiction as taken by Opposite Party No.1. It is pleaded that the air tickets clearly states the conditions of carriage.  It is pleaded that the flight No.S2 4238 schedule to depart on 16.2.2014 was admittedly cancelled due to scheduled closure of runway on 1^st and 3^rd Sunday’s at Chandigarh Airport (which is managed by the Air Force authorities) from 0730 UTC to 1430 UTC (In IST it is 1300 hrs to 2000 hrs) which was beyond the control of the answering Opposite Party.  It is also submitted that the information regarding cancellation of the said flight was sent to Make My Trip and to all IATA accredited travel agents/web portals, etc. through A5T QQ message through an automatic computer system generated message and thereafter, it is the duty of the travel agents concerned to inform the passengers about cancellation of such flights and offer alternative options and in this case, the Opposite Party No.1 was duly informed about cancellation due to runway closure.  It is submitted despite knowing that flight was cancelled due to force majure circumstance, still the complainants created ruckus at the airport and filed the present complaint without any basis.  It is further submitted that airport closure which was beyond the control of the Opposite Parties cannot be a subject matter of deficiency in service. It is pleaded that the complainants have accepted the full refund of the ticket amount without any demurer from Opposite Party No.1 by following due process of claiming refund, as they had booked their tickets through the said web portal only and now they have preferred complaint as an afterthought. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.  

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record.

 

6]       The complainants have preferred the present complaint against the Opposite Parties on the ground that during their plan of vacations, they had preferred to travel by air on the last lap of their tour programme from Delhi to Chandigarh on 16.2.2014 and for this purpose, online portal of Opposite Party No.1, was used to subscribe for respective three air tickets of OPs No.2 & 3, which were issued with due confirmation.  The complainants on the given date of their boarding the flight in question, reached the desk of OPs No.2 & 3 at IGI Airport, New Delhi, but to their utter surprise and dismay, the executive politely conveyed about the cancellation of the flight and the complainants raised an objection that if such cancellation was effected much earlier, then they should have been informed accordingly, so that some alternate arrangements could be made well in advance, rather than suffer the harassment of arranging tickets at the eleventh hours, which according to them, Opposite Party No.2 & 3 refused to help. Thus, compelling them, to hire a Taxi by spending an amount of Rs.8275/- to reach Chandigarh.  The complainants also claimed to have suffered a great hardship due to the inconvenient road travel all through the night and they were hard pressed to reach Chandigarh so as to attend too their official responsibilities the next day. 

 

7]       The complainants have, however, disclosed that it was after a passage of nearly more than a month, that an amount of Rs.11,397/- was received in their account without any written intimation from the office of Opposite Parties disclosing whether the Opposite Parties intended to pay any more amount towards the interest for the period for which the amount remained with them. 

 

8]       The complainants feeling aggrieved of irresponsible action of the Opposite Parties preferred the present complaint seeking the quoted relief. 

 

9]       The Opposite Party NO.2 & 3 while defending themselves, apart from raising different technical objections, have disclosed and also placed on record Ann.JL/B & JL/C, according to which after the booking of the tickets by the complainants on 3^th Jan., 2014.  An order was notified on 9^th Jan., 2014 declaring that on 1^st and 3^rd Sunday’s of every month, the runways would remain closed and that the flight No.S2 4238 (DEL-1XC) of 16^th Feb., 2014 was cancelled and an immediate message was highlighted on the Agent’s System through QQ Message.  It is evident from these two annexures that Opposite Party No.2 & 3 were compelled to cancel all such flights, which were scheduled on 1^st and 3^rd Sunday’s falling after 9^th Jan., 2014, for the reasons beyond their control and that such cancellation of flights was duly intimated to all the concerned agents, Makemy Trip.com in the case of the complainants, whose name is found mentioned at Sr.No.3 of Ann.JL/C (Page No.25 of their Reply). 

 

10]      In the present scenario, when Opposite Party No.1, was duly intimated by OPs No.2 & 3 on 9^th of Jan., 2014 about the cancellation of flight of the complainants, it was the sole responsibility of Opposite Party No.1 alone to intimate the complainants about such change and also advised them about the alternate available to them, so that the unnecessary harassment that they suffered could have been avoided. Such an irresponsible act of Opposite Party No.1 amounts to deficiency in service towards the complainants.  

 

11]      It is also evident that the refund made to the complainant was after a period of nearly one month and Opposite Party No.1 did not explain whether the complainants were entitled to the claimed amount of interest on this amount for the reason that it was prompt in disbursing the same amount received from OPs No.2 & 3.  Though it is not specifically quoted by either of the Opposite Parties as to when this amount of Rs.11,397/- became due to be paid to the complainants, therefore, we feel that once the flight in question was cancelled on 9^th Jan., 2014, the refund was only made after a passage of nearly two months and the complainants are certainly entitled for the loss of money for the time when this amount remained with the OPs.  Though, Opposite Party No.1 has offered to pay Rs.8275/- spent by the complainants as taxi fare, but it had not explained as to why, the complainants were not duly intimated about the cancellation of the flight. In view of this offer of Opposite Party NO.1, we may take a lenient view.    

 

12]      The present complaint of the complainants deserves to be dismissed qua OPs No.2 & 3 as no case of deficiency in service is made out against them.

        

13]      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party No.1 is found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainants and   Hence, the present complaint of the Complainants is allowed qua Opposite Party No.1 alone. The Opposite Party No.1 is directed as under:-

 

a]  To pay Rs.8275/- towards taxi fare spent by the complainants as per Ann.P-2;

b]  To pay an interest @9% per annum on the amount of Rs.11,397/- from the date of cancellation of flight i.e. 9.1.2014 till it was credited in the complainant’s account;

c]  To pay a consolidated amount of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation to the complainants for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service;

 d] To pay Rs.7,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainants.  

 

         The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party No.1; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on amounts mentioned in sub-para (a & C) above from the date of filing of this complaint till it is paid; the interest mentioned in sub-para (b) above shall be @18% p.a. instead of 9% p.a., apart from paying litigation expenses of Rs.7,000/-.

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

05.06.2015                                                 Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

PRITI MALHOTRA

MEMBER

                                                                                                                       

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.360 OF 2014

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 5th day of June, 2015

O R D E R                        Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed against Opposite Party No.1.                    After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Priti Malhotra)	(Rajan Dewan)	(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)
Member	President	Member