Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/903/2019

Pradeep Kumar Sachdeva - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Cleartrip - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

10 Jun 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                                    ========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/903/2019
Date of Institution	:	03/09/2019
Date of Decision	:	10/06/2021

 

 

Pradeep Kumar Sachdeva, Flat No.60, Sector 51-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

1.      M/s Cleartrip, 06, Godrej Business Distt., Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli, Mumbai-400079.

 

2.      M/s Jet Airways (India) Ltd., Siroya Centre, Sahar Airport, Port Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai. [Complaint against OP No.2 dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 08.03.2021].

…… Opposite Parties

QUORUM	:	SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
		SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

For Complainant	:	Complainant in person.
For OP No.1	:	Ex-parte
For OP No.2	:	Complaint against OP No.2 dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 08.03.2021.

 

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

 

1.         Adumbrated in brief, the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant Consumer Complaint are, the son of the Complainant Ayush Sachdeva booked air tickets for his parents, namely Pradeep Kumar Sachdeva (Complainant) and Swarn Kanta Sachdeva on 07.01.2019 online through M/s Cleartrip Opposite Party (Opposite Party No.1) for Jet Airways Flight No.9ws545 from Dubai to New Delhi and were allotted PNR No. CQUUGO after the payment of `13,938.94/- to Opposite Party No.1. The Flight in question was scheduled from Dubai to New Delhi on 30.03.2019, but was cancelled on 18.03.2019, on account of which the Complainant and his wife had to return from Dubai on 30.03.2019 by Air India flight at higher rate. It has been alleged, the Complainant contacted the Jet Airways Office at Airport for refund of cancelled ticket and was informed that full amount would be refunded by the M/s Cleartrip (Opposite Party No.1) through whom the tickets were booked. Thereafter, the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party No.1 and requested them to refund the full amount, but they refunded only `1,983/- out of `13,938.94/-. When resisted, the Complainant was told that the balance amount of `11,955/- would be refunded as soon as the same was received from the Jet Airways. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
2.         In view of the e-mail dated 08.03.2021 received from the Complainant, complaint against Opposite Party No.2 was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 08.03.2021.
3.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party No.1 seeking its version of the case.
4.         However, Opposite Party No.1 did not turn up in spite of service, as such, it was proceeded ex-parte.
5.         Complainant led evidence.
6.         We have gone through the entire record and heard the arguments addressed by the Complainant.
7.         The whole evidence placed on record by the complainant corroborates the assertions set out in the present complaint. Significantly, the Opposite Party No.1 did not appear to contest the claim of the Complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Party No.1 draws an adverse inference against it.
8.         The non-appearance of the Opposite Party No.1 shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the Complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.
9.         In the present circumstances, it is established beyond all reasonable doubts that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine as he has been made to run from pillar to post for no fault on his part. The harassment suffered by the Complainant is also writ large.
10.         The Opposite Party No.1 has certainly and definitely indulged into unfair trade practice as it ought to have initiate steps to redress the grievance of the Complainant promptly, which they failed to do.
11.         At any rate, the Opposite Party No.1 even did not bother to redress the grievance of the Complainant, despite having approached for the same by the Complainant time and again not only amounts to deficiency in service, but is a grave malpractice under the Consumer Protection Act.
12.         In the light of above discussion, this consumer complaint deserves to succeed. The same is accordingly partly allowed.  Opposite Party No.1 is directed as under:-

(i)     To refund the amount of `11,955/- to the Complainant.

(ii)    To pay `10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and harassment caused to him.

(iii)   To also pay a sum of `7,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

13.         This order shall be complied with by Opposite Party No.1 within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, Opposite Party No.1 shall be liable to pay interest @9% p.a. on the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) from the date of filing the complaint till realization, besides paying litigation expenses mentioned at Sr. No.(iii) above.
14.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

10^th June, 2021

Sd/-

                        (SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

 “Dutt”