Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

1.       This Consumer Complaint has been received by transfer vide order dated 26.11.2021 of Hon’ble President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh under section 48 of CPA Act, vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 from District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana to District Consumer Commission, Moga to decide the same in Camp Court at Ludhiana and said order was ordered to be affected from 14^th March, 2022.

2.       The  complainant  has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that the complainants have booked two tickets for Madurai through online against PNR No.JJZMG from Chennai to Mudrai for 20^th October 2015. On 20.10.15 around 1.30 pm, the complainant no.1 contacted the customer care of the Opposite Party on mobile no.1800 180 1407 through mobile no.8283904300 to confirm their booking before departure from Ludhiana. The concerned official available at the customer care of the Opposite Party told to the complainant no.1 that the booking done on 23.06.15 has been cancelled on the same evening for reasons not known to him. The complainant no.1 strongly protested against this, since he had never got it cancelled during the intervening period and there was no intimation from the Opposite Party for any such unilateral act. Complainants became upset upon the information received from the customer care center of the Opposite Party and they were left with no other alternative except to go for the cancellation of other flights and getting rebooking of the complainants for their journey at extra costs. However in the evening of 20.10.15 a message was received on the mobile of complainant no.1 i.e. 9888025348 as follows:- " A.I. regrets rescheduling of your flight A.I 671 Ex Chennai of 21 Oct 15. The revised time of departure is 12.50hrs. Please call 1800 180 1407". This message was of no use to the complainants since the damage had already been done to the complainants subsequent to the misinformation of the customer care centre of the Opposite Party of cancelling of their booking on 23.06.15 for 21.10.15 unilaterally without any intimation. The complainant no.1 has written a letter dated 01.01.16 to the Opposite Party . Prior to it the complainant no.1 had informed to the Opposite Party by email sent on 11.11.15 then on 17.11.15. The complainants had to book their other flights by rescheduling their visit to Madurai. Earlier the complainants had to go to Chennai from New Delhi and then from Chennai to Madurai but due to the misinformation of the Opposite Party, the complainants rescheduled their religious visit from New Delhi to Chennai and then changed to New Delhi to Hyderabad and from Hyderabad to Madurai on Spicejet Airline as no other flight was available for 21^st October 2015 to go to Mudurai from New Delhi. The complainants have to spend Rs.36,108/- for purchasing the tickets from New Delhi to Madurai via Hyderabad of Spice Jet which were booked through the booking agency i.e. Make My Trip. The complainant had spent an amount of Rs.16,434/- for purchasing the tickets from the respondent for New Delhi to Chennai and had to spend of Rs.4996/- for flight from Chennai to Madurai by Air India. The complainants have received a refund of Rs.1838/- only from the Opposite Party against the above said bookings therefore the complainants have suffered a loss of Rs.19,645/-. The complainants have to spend an amount of Rs.36,108/- for purchasing the tickets of Spice Jet Ex New Delhi to Mudurai via Hyderabad. After adjusting the amount of Rs.1838/- as refund received from the Opposite Party, the complainants have suffered a total loss of Rs.34,270/-. The complainants have to spend amount of Rs.34,270/- as extra amount for their journey Ex New Delhi to Madurai via Hyderabad through Spice Jet Air Lines on account of the misinformation given by the Opposite Party to the complainants. There is a great deficiency of service from the Opposite Party to the complainants. The respondent has failed miserably to provide proper and effective service to the complainants on account of which the complainants have suffered financial loss as well as mental tension, torture and harassment on account of not providing proper service by the respondent to the complainants. Hence this complaint. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following relief:-

a)       Opposite Parties may be directed to pay an amount of Rs.34,270/- as financial loss suffered by the complainants.

b)      To pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation.

c)       To pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses

3.       Opposite Party appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply taking preliminary objections that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. The complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from the respondent as well as from this Forum. There are so many intricate and complicated points involved in this case and to prove these points elaborate evidence is required to be led/produced as such only the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the matter. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, so the complaint of the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is submitted that the booking was cancelled on the same date i.e. on 23.06.2015 itself and conveyed to the complainants through the call centre and refund has been received by the complainants. The complainants with some ulterior motives contacted the customer care on 20.10.2015 knowing fully well that their tickets have been cancelled. It is admitted that the Opposite Party has no knowledge about rescheduling of his visit from New Delhi to Mudurai on Spicejet Airline. The cancellation was done on 23.6.2015 much before the schedule of visits. Complainants were knew about the cancellation of the tickets much earlier but they have concocted a false story. All other allegations made in the complaint are denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint is made.

4.       In order to prove his case, complainant no.1 has placed on record his affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10. On the other hand, Opposite Party placed on record affidavit of Sh.Aurindam Chattopadhyay, Airport Manager/Station Master Ex.RA.

5.       We have gone through the documents placed on record. The case of the complainants are that they booked two tickets from Chennai to Mudrai for 20.10.20215. But when on 20.10.15 around 1.30 pm, the complainant no.1 contacted the customer care of the Opposite Party, then they came to know that the booking done on 23.06.15 has been cancelled on the same day, so they were left with no other alternative except to go on other flights. However, the complainants have received a refund of Rs.1838/- from the Opposite Party against the above said bookings On the other hand, as per the written version, the plea of the Opposite Party is that the booking was cancelled on the same date i.e. on 23.06.2015 and it was conveyed to the complainants through the call centre and refund has received by the complainants. The complainants with some ulterior motives contacted the customer care on 20.10.2015.  However, both the parties have failed to prove their case by any cogent and convincing evidence on record. The other plea of Opposite Party in the written version is that there are intricate and complication points involved in the case and to prove these points elaborate evidence is required to be produced as such only the Civil Court has the competence to decide the matter. Hence, we are of the view that intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the present complaint which require voluminous documents and evidence for determination which is not possible in the summary procedure  under the Consumer Protection Act and appropriate remedy, if any, lies only in the Civil Court. Not only this,  the nature of the dispute, in the present complaint, is squarely covered by the law laid down by their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgements.  Further in case Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Munimahesh Patel 2006(IV) CPJ page 1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :-

“Proceedings before the commission are essentially summary in nature and adjudication of issues which involve disputed factual questions should not be adjudicated. It is to be noted that commission accepted that insured was not a teacher. Complainant raised dispute about genuineness of the documents (i.e. proposal forms) produced by the appellant.”

Their lordships have further held that :-

“The nature of the proceedings before the commission as noted above, are essentially in summary nature. The factual position was required to be established by documents. Commission was required to examine whether in view of the disputed facts it would exercise the jurisdiction. The State Commission was right in its view that the complex factual position requires that the matter should be examined by an appropriate court of Law and not by the Commission.”

A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 1(2004) CPJ page 101 wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in a revision petition titled as R.D. Papers Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. in para No.7 of the judgement  which reads as under:-

“After going through the complaint and the written version, it appears to us that the complaint raises complicated questions of facts which cannot be decided by us in our summary jurisdiction.”

6.     Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the instant complaint is not maintainable in this District Consumer Commission for its proper adjudication and the same stands dismissed. All applications pending before this District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, if any, stand disposed off accordingly.  However, the complainant can get redressal of his grievance from the Civil Court/ or any other  competent authority, in accordance with law, for which the time spent before this District Commission shall stand excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled 'Lakshmi Engineering Works vs PSG Industrial Institute reported in 1995(3) SCC 583'. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost by District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana and thereafter, the file be consigned to record room after compliance.

7.       Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.

This Consumer Complaint was originally filed at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Now Commission) at Ludhiana and it keep pending over there until Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 has transferred the instant Consumer Complaint alongwith Other Complaints to District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Moga with directions to work on this file onward from 14^th March, 2022 and accordingly District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Moga has decided the present complaint at Camp Court, Ludhiana, as early as possible.

Announced in Open Commission at Camp Court, Ludhiana.