Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

170/2014

B.Samuel Joseph Raj,S/o.Balagurusamy, - Complainant(s)

Versus

MIS Makemy Trip India Pvt Ltd., rep by its Managing Director., - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.K.Premkumar

09 Dec 2016

ORDER

                                                            Complaint presented on:  12.08.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  09.12.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

FRIDAY THE 09^th DAY  OF DECEMBER 2016

 

C.C.NO.170/2014

 

 

B.Samuel Joseph Raj,

S/o. Balagurusamy,

D-2, Aiswaryam, Banu Nagar,

26^th Avenue, Ambattur,

Chennai – 600 053.

 

                                                                                            ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1.M/s. Make my Trip India Pvt., Ltd.,

Rep.by its Managing Director,

Tower A, SP Infocity,

243, Udyog Vihar, Phase – 1,

GURGAON – 122 016, Haryana State.

 

2.The Branch Incharge,

M/s. Makemy Trip India Pvt. Ltd.,

Shop G.6 Ground Floor,

Gee Gee Emerald, 151 Village Road,

Nungmbakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

 

3. The Manager (Guest Affairs),

M/s. Etihad Airways,

Sunder Mahal, 1^st Floor,

141, Marine Drive, Mumbai – 400 020.

 

4.M/s. Etihad Airways,

2^nd Floor, Narain Manzil,

23, Barakhamba Road,

New Delhi – 110 001.

 

	...Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                  : 26.08.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.K.Premkumar

Counsel for 1^st & 2^nd   opposite parties     : M/s.V.Selvaraj

 

Counsel for 3^rd & 4^th Opposite Parties      : Rupa. J.Tharayil

 

 

 

O R D E R

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant  booked through the 1^st Opposite Party website viz “make mytrip.com” to travel from Chennai to New York, JFK Airport  on 03.02.2014 and for return journey on 25.07.2014 and paid a sum of Rs.64,511/-. The Complainant travelled by Etihad Airways Flight on 03.02.2014 from Chennai and reached JFK Airport as scheduled. He has to return to Chennai on 27.05.2014 via Abudhabi to Dubai. However due to inclimate weather condition and unprecedented snow storm over the entire city of the New York, the Complainant health unable to bear with that climate and hence he decided to return to Chennai immediately. On 05.02.2014  the Complainant contacted the 1^st Opposite Party representative to make arrangements for his return journey and as demanded by the 1^st Opposite Party representative, he had paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards airlines charges, Rs.5,000/- towards service charges and Rs.4,000/- for changing the schedule of travel and  the Complainant also paid said sum through his SBI credit card  vide MMT booking ID No.1402 B 5022587 and he has also got his e-ticket from the 1^st Opposite Party for his travel on 07.02.2014 by Etihad Airways Flight No.EY100 departure at 21.40 hours.

          2. The Complainant reached JFK Airport at 16.00 hours on 07.02.2014 and he contacted Mr.Shaheen, Supervisor of the Etihad Airways and he in turn contacted representative of the 1^st Opposite Party and asked how could they issue a ticket to Chennai via Abudhabi & Dubai which includes bus service and more than 24 hours stay in UAE and for such longer stay in UAE requires visa from that country. From 16:00 hours to 20:30 hours the Complainant and the 3^rd Opposite Party representative tried to contact the customer care of the 1^st Opposite Party ended in vain and further the 3^rd & 4^th Opposite Parties insisted the Complainant to pay a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for a fresh ticket to fly in the same flight. Then the Complainant contacted his son at Chennai and he in turn contacted the staff of the 2^nd Opposite Party office at Chennai and the reply that they have nothing to do with on line booking.  A girl at airport by name Miss Aditi -Pushkar also tried to contact the 1^st Opposite Party also ended in vain.  Finally one Mr.Paras, a representative of the 1^st Opposite Party told that the Complainant can fly back to Chennai on 08.02.2014 by 3^rd Opposite Party flight by paying a sum of Rs.12,000/- in Etihad counter  and the Complainant also paid the said amount at 16:00 hours in the said counter. The staff of the 3^rd Opposite Party tried to reschedule the Complainant ticket and he could not access as the ticket was not booked by Etihad airways.  Then the Complainant forced to stay through one of  his friend Mr.Pal Rajan in a nearby hotel. The Complainant was forced to stay at the  airport for 36:00 hours. Finally his son booked a fresh ticket through the 1^st Opposite Party MMD booking ID NN 230133978447 in Gulf air for the travel on 09.02.2014 at 19:25 hours and after ordeal  of 48:00 hours the Complainant left the JFK airport. The Complainant son borrowed a ticket for Rs.44,000/- and totally a sum of Rs.1,24,000/- was paid to the 1^st Opposite Party.  The Complainant states that irony is that even this journey from JFK Airport, New York was delayed by snow storm for over two hrs by American Airlines flight and due to this, the Gulf Air GF-2 connecting flight left the London City, when the Complainant arrived at London LHR Airport. The Complainant shuttled between Terminals 3 & 4, which includes bus journey and long walking and there was no communication from the American Airlines and hence the Complainant travelled by Emirates EK002 from London, LHR to Dubai and from Dubai to Chennai MAA by Emirates EK 544 and arrived at Chennai by 9.00 hrs on 11.02.2014.          The Complainant was neglected by the Opposite Parties not arranging travel from JFK airport to Chennai inspite of that he was having valid ticket. Due to such neglected act the Complainant undergone trauma and mental agony and hence after issuing legal notice  he had filed this Complaint  for compensation with cost of the Complaint.

3. WRITTERN VERSION OF THE  1^st & 2^nd OPPOSITE PARTIES  IN BRIEF:

          The Opposite Parties states that as per jurisdiction clause of the terms and conditions of the user agreement, agreed between the user and Opposite Parties at the time of booking, this Forum does not have jurisdiction to entertain this Complaint and the courts at  NCR Delhi have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the disputes, if any, arising out of this booking. The Hon’ble Court and National Commission have repeatedly held that territorial jurisdiction cannot be invoked if the Opposite Parties does not have its establishment in a place where Complaint is filed. Therefore as said above this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this Complaint and on this score alone the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          4. The Complainant must prove that he suffered loss due to the acts or omission of the Opposite Parties to claim monetary compensation. However this Opposite Parties accept that the Complainant booked tickets to travel from Chennai to New York on 03.02.2014 and return on 27.05.2014. The Opposite Parties websites makes booking only through online and there remains no human interference   at the ends of the Opposite Parties. Whatever generated at the time of booking in the online, the tickets are generated accordingly. No online booking can be made by any visitor of Opposite Parties website, unless he accepts the terms and conditions of the user agreement. The Complainant proposed his return journey from 27.05.2014 to 07.02.2014 and accordingly as per applicable charges, the Opposite Parties did the needful and rescheduled the return journey flight.  The Complainant did not possess transit visa to travel and stay at UAE and he simply requested for date of change and never intended to procure transit visa of UAE. Therefore this Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service and prays to dismiss the Complaint with cost.

5. WRITTERN VERSION OF THE  3^rd  & 4^th  OPPOSITE PARTIES  IN BRIEF:

          There is no cause of action arose against these Opposite Parties for the failure of service committed by the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 for not making the necessary changes to the travel tickets of the Complainant.  This Opposite Parties did not allow the Complainant to board the flight as he had a trip to Dubai also included and therefore, not having a visa he could be allowed to travel on the flight since he was to stay in Dubai for more than 24:00 hours. The Complainant should be aware of the visa requirements. Refund of the tickets amount as any between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties 1 & 2. Therefore this Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service and further deny the other averments made in the Complaint and prays to dismiss the Complaint with cost.

6.POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complaint is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

7. POINT NO:1

          The 1^st & 2^nd Opposite Parties website provides condition for booking the tickets through the 1^st Opposite Party website. According to the 1^st Opposite Party the user agreement provides a clause for jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint at Delhi Courts. Hence the 1^st & 2^nd Opposite Parties contended that this Forum has no jurisdiction and in support of their contention they referred various decisions in their written version. However for perusal of those copy of   judgments by this Forum have not been placed and hence the written version referred judgment have not been discussed in this order. As per section 11(2)(b)  any Opposite Parties carries of business or have a branch office in that branch office area, the District Forum has jurisdiction. Admittedly in case in hand the 1^st Opposite Party branch office (2^nd Opposite Party)  located at Nungambakkam, Chennai is very well  fall within the jurisdiction of this Forum and therefore the Complaint is also maintainable against the 1^st Opposite Party also.          

 

 

8.POINT : 2

           It is an admitted fact that  the Complainant  booked ticket  to travel from Chennai to USA, New York, JFK Airport  on 03.02.2014 and for return journey on 25.07.2014  through the 1^st Opposite Party  website viz “make mytrip.com” and paid a sum of Rs.64,511/-  for the said journey and  the Complainant travelled by Etihad Airways Flight on 03.02.2014 from Chennai and reached JFK Airport as scheduled and instead  he has returned to Chennai on 27.05.2014 via Abudhabi to Dubai, due to inclement weather  condition he had preponed his travel  on 07.02.2014 and for the same he had paid a sum of Rs.9,500/- to the 1^st Opposite Party for rescheduling his return ticket and accordingly the 1^st Opposite Party also sent an e-ticket for the  travel on 07.02.2014 by Etihad airways and however on reaching the airport at 16.00 hours on 07.02.2014 he learnt from the airways supervisor that how the 1^st Opposite Party issued a ticket to Chennai via Abudhabi & Dubai which includes bus travel  more than 24 hours  stay at UAE requires visa and therefore the 3^rd & 4^th Opposite Parties denied to issue boarding ticket to the Complainant.

          9. Admittedly the Complainant booked ticket through the 1^st Opposite Party website for his return journey on 27.05.2014 and the same was reschedule at the request of the Complainant on payment of necessary fees to the 1^st Opposite Party, the 1^st Opposite Party issued e-ticket for the travel of the Complainant at the New York, JFK airport to Chennai on 07.02.2014 and the said ticket  is available in Ex.A3.  The 3^rd & 4^th Opposite Parties have not allowed the Complainant to travel in their flight on 07.02.2014, since he is not having visa to land in UAE, as the passengers at Abudhabi has to travel through bus and they have to stay there in UAE for more than 24 hours which requires visa for the Complainant to land at UAE and the Complainant did not possess such visa.

10. The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 would contend that in the e-ticket issued by them itself contains that the passenger before commencement of travel they have to check and collect all valid documents required for travel such as passport, air tickets, valid, visa(s) etc. and therefore the Complainant should have valid visa to land in UAE and failure to have the same the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 cannot be faulted. Normally the customer while booking tickets in the 1^st Opposite Party website they will search for which is suitable for their timings. During the Enroute stations, the visa is required or not is not known to the customers who are booking the tickets. The 1^st Opposite Party is well aware that while the passengers booked ticket in a particular timing and particular flight of the 3rd & 4^th Opposite Parties the passengers have to stay more than   24 hours at UAE and which requires visa also to land at UAE. Further the Complainant rescheduled his return ticket only with the help of the 1^st Opposite Party representatives from the airport. Further the Complainant specifically pleaded  in para  6 of  the Complaint   that the 1^st Opposite Party representative demanded   a sum of Rs.9,500/- for airlines charges, services and charge for rescheduling the travel and thereafter paying such amount only the Complainant  received Ex.A3 e-ticket to fly in Ethihad Airways Flight No.EY100 departure at 21.40 hours. Therefore the 1^st Opposite Party representative and himself has the knowledge of rescheduling of the flight via UAE i.e Dubai.  In such circumstances, the representative of the 1^st Opposite Party should have informed to the Complainant that he requires visa to land in UAE. Further the customer while booking the tickets when they were not aware of the enroute documents required for travel. The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 ought to have put a note in the website itself that in the particular route to stay more 24 hours which requires visa to land in UAE. If such a fact displayed in the website, certainly the Complainant ought not to have chosen to travel in that route. It is the people who issue the ticket have to say that what are all the documents required for travel to carry along with the passengers. Therefore having this Opposite Parties 1 & 2 collected ticket charges and failure to intimate the Complainant either through website or through representative to inform that visa is required to stay for  more than 24 hours in UAE is deficiency on their part.

11. The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 contended that they have issued the ticket as required by the Complainant and the Opposite Parties 3 & 4 only denied the boarding and therefore it is only on the part of the Opposite Parties 3 & 4 and not with them.  Such a contention of the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 is rejected for the reason stated above and  further for the   return journey the amount collected under Ex.A1 ticket till now was not refunded to the Complainant as contended by him and  therefore we hold that the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 have committed  Deficiency in Service.

  12. The Complainant alleges deficiency against the 3^rd & 4^th Opposite Parties are that they have denied boarding  at New York, JFK airport and he paid Etihad Airways counter a sum of Rs.12,000/-  for rescheduling the ticket and even after that he was not allowed to travel.  Admittedly to land in UAE valid visa is required and therefore the 3^rd and 4^th Opposite Parties, since the Complainant did not possess such visa they have denied boarding to him is sustainable and therefore we hold that the 3^rd & 4^th Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service.

 13 .POINT :3

          The Complainant entered JFK airport on 07.02.2014 at 16:00 hours to board Etihad airways. He was denied boarding on that day night.  Since he did not get any solution from the Opposite Parties to travel to Chennai the Complainant contacted his son at Chennai and his son booked ticket to the Complainant in Gulf AIR GF -6616 for the travel on 09.02.2014 at 19.24 hours and the said ticket is marked as Ex.A5. Therefore the Complainant faced ordeal for 48 hours and thereafter he left the JFK airport through Gulf Air. In the mean time he stayed at hotel outside of the airport through his friends Paulrajan and Joshi of New Jersey and outside which was evidenced under Ex.A4. As per Ex.A4 he spent $160.

14. The Complainant prays to pay a sum of Rs.88,500/- in the Complaint. The Complainant stated that his son borrowed ticket for a sum of Rs.44,000/-.  This fact was not denied by the Opposite Parties. Therefore the Complainant purchased ticket for a sum of Rs.44,000/- (Ex.A5) proved by him and such amount he is entitled to get  refund.  Due to improper guidelines of the Opposite Parties 1 & 2, the Complainant forced to stay at a hotel outside the JFK airport by spending $160 and approximately when the Complainant remained for more than 24 hours in the airport he could have spent approximately fixed at $ 40. Thus the Complainant is entitled for $ 200 by way of expenses which is equivalent to Indian money is Rs.12,500/- as mentioned  at page 7 of the Complaint.  The Complainant undergone ordeal for 48 hours and thereby suffered with mental agony at JFK airport and for the same it would be appropriate to order a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation to the Complainant besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.  The Complainant is entitled for the reliefs from the 1^st & 2^nd Opposite Parties only as indicated above and   in respect of the 3^rd & 4^th Opposite Parties the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 jointly or severally are ordered to pay a sum of Rs.56,500/- (44,000+ 12,500)  (Rupees fifty six thousand and five hundred only) towards cost of the return ticket and expenses incurred  to the Complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- ( Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses.

The above amount shall be paid to the Complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment. The Complaint in respect of the 3^rd & 4^th Opposite Parties is dismissed without costs.    

Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 09^th day of December 2016.

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 25.01.2014	E-Ticket of the Complainant for his Travel from Chennai to New York (Via-Abdudhabi) on 03.02.2014 and return Ticket from Ne York to Chennai (via) Abudhabi) on 27.05.2014 issued by 1st Opposite Party
Ex.A2 dated 01.10.2008	Ordained Bishop Certificate of the Complainant with Visa issued by U.S.A.
Ex.A3 dated 25.01.2014	E-Ticket of the Complainant for his Travel from New York  to Chennai  (Via-Abdudhabi) on 07.02.2014 issued by the 1st Opposite Party
Ex.A4 dated 02.09.2014	Folio Receipt issued for Complainant’s Hotel Stay at New York
Ex.A5 dated 09.02.2014	E-Ticket issued to Complainant for his Travel on 09.02.2014 from New York to Chennai (Via-Heathrew Airpot London and Abu Dhabi) issued by 1st Opposite Party
Ex.A6 dated 12.02.2014	E-mail Complaint dt.12.02.2014 from Complainant to 1st Opposite Party
Ex.A7 dated NIL	E-mail Complaint dt.20.02.2014 from Complainant to 1st Opposite Party
Ex.A8 dated 15.02.2014	E-mail reply dt.15.02.2014 from 1st Opposite Party to Complainant
Ex.A9 dated 18.02.2014	E-mail reply dt.18.02.2014 from 1st Opposite Party to Complainant
Ex.A10 dated 09.03.2014	E-mail reply dt.08.03.2014 from 1st Opposite Party to Complainant
Ex.A11 dated 12.04.2014	Notice from Complainant’s Advocate to the Opposite Parties with acknowledgement cards
Ex.A12 dated 05.05.2014	Reply from 3rd Opposite Party to Complainant’s advocate
Ex.A13 dated NIL	Service Request/e-mail entry of the 1st Opposite Party
Ex.A14 dated 01.11.2013	Medical records of the Complainant
Ex.A15 dated NIL	Loan Documents of the Complainant from City Bank and Bajaj Finerv

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 3^rd & 4^th  OPPOSITE PARTIES:

Ex.B1 dated 25.01.2014                       Copy of Original and rescheduled tickets

Ex.B2 dated NIL                          Conditions of carriage of Opposite Party 3 & 4

Ex.B3 dated  06.08.2010                       Copy of Notification issued by the office of the

                                                         Director General of Civil Aviation   

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 1^st  & 2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTIES:

 

Ex.B4 dated 04.12.2014                            Make my trip

Ex.B5 dated NIL                               Agreement Between User and Make my 

                                                              Trip Click on the links below for details

 

         

                                               

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT