Karnataka

Bijapur

CC/93/2014

Smt Kirti Narasapur Karanam W/o Vinay Karanam - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Goibibo Com Ibibo web Private ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sri SANDEEP KATTI

28 Dec 2016

ORDER

                 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, VIJAYAPUR

DATE OF FILING 7^th  DAY OF MARCH 2014

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 93/2014

 

DATED THIS THE 28^th  DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016

 

01) Sri S.H. Hosalli                            -          President.     

                  B.Com.LLB. (Spl),

 

02) Smt.G.S. Kalyani                         -        Lady Member.

                 B.Com.LLB. (Spl),

 

COMPLAINANT   -	1	Smt. Kriti Narsapaur Karanam W/o Vinay Karanam, Age:27 Yrs, Residing at, No.401, Garden View Apartments, Plot. No.50-51, Shree Shiva Sai CHS Sector 19, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai-410210
	2	Sri. Seshagiri Rao Karanam S/o Thirumala Rao Karanam Age about 56 Yrs,, Residing at, No.401,Garden View Apartments, Plot. No.50-51, Shree Shiva Sai CHS, Sector 19, Kharghar, Navi, Mumbai-410210.
	3	Smt. Hemalatha Karanam, W/o Seshagiri Rao Karanam Age about 54 Yrs, Residing at, No.401, Garden View Apartments, Plot No.50-51, Shree Shiva Sai CHS, Sector 19, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai-410210
	4	Chi. Urvi Karanam D/o Vinay Karanam Age about 2 Yrs, Residing at, No.401, Garden View Apartments, Plot No.50-51,Shree Shiva Sai CHS, Sector 19, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai-410210 Since minor Represented by Guardian Kirti Narsapur  Karanam Mother.   ( By Sri. Sandeepkatti,  Adv)

 

- V/S -

 

OPPOSITE PARTY  -	1	M/s Goibibo. Com Ibibo Web Private Limited, 4th Floor, Pearl Towers, Plot No.51, Sector 32, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 (India) Represented by its Managing Director,   (Op-1 by Sri. V.R.Patil,  Adv)
	2	M/s SRE Travels, Head Post Office, Chitradurga, Karnataka
	3	M/S Meenakshi Travels Opp to old Bus Stand, Near Royal Circle, Bellary-583101.   (Op-2 & 3 Exparte)

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

Speaking through Smt. G.S. Kalyani, Lady Member.

 

 

 

This is a Complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (in short the “Ops”) directing the Ops to refund the sum of Rs.2,500/- for three tickets an additional expenditure of Rs.14,000/- and also direct the Ops to compensate the complainants by paying of Rs.50,000/- with 6% interest towards loss, suffering  and for deficiency of service etc.,

 

2)       The brief facts of the case are that:-

         

          The complainants sated that Op-1 is online travel sites/portal in India that enables travels to buy air and bus tickets, hotels and holidays broadly that would mean Op-1 acts as a Mediator between passengers, Op No:2 & 3 are the Operators having bus Services between various destinations in India, tickets of Op No:2 also be booked through the website of Op-1.                  

 

3)       Complainants further submit that advertisements by Op-1 in their website complainant forced to book their return tickets from Bijapur (Karnataka) to Mumbai (Maharashtra) Complainant booked 3 tickets for themselves on 27/05/2013, for scheduled departure on 29/05/2013 at 22:15 hrs bearing operator PNR No:126413-TS-YAR4710581GOQ under booking ID GOBUS11c2c1369620702, ticket clearly mention the name of travels/Operator as M/S SRE Travels i.e. Op-2.

 

4)       It is contended that On 29/05/2013 complainant reached the Pick point at M/s Ganesh travels at around 21:45 hours, that is half an hour before the scheduled departure, no bus come up to 22:30 hours complainant contact the travelers finally bus arrived at around 00:30 hrs on         30/05/2013, but complainant was not allowed to board the bus. On the ground that Op-2 has acquired the seat by Op-3 15 days back, Op-3 said that they not responsible for the ticket booked by the complainant and asked to Op-1 helplessly complainant return to her relative’s house at 1.30 AM in the mid night on 30/05/2013.  Complainant  was to accompany her aged in –laws and young baby it is uphill task  for complainant to return back to home at midnight complainant was put in fear of the safety of her accompanies she was  subjected to unbearable tension, fear, mental agony pain and suffering Ops responsible for all above mental and Physical suffering.

 

5)       Complainant further states that regard to urgency on 30/05/2013 she booked train tickets from Miraj to Pune in II AC, she failed to get direct ticket from Bijapur to Mumbai complainant not reached the Miraj in time, reached the pune to Mumbai on 31/05/2013 at 9.30 am complainant burdened with an additional expenditure of Rs.14,000/- Complainant husband requested to Ops to refund the ticket amount and compensate the complainants for deficiency of service and unlawful trade practice.  But all attempts turn in vain.

 

 

 

 

6)       The complainant got issued legal notice to Ops calling upon them to compensate and refund the ticket amount, though notice was served they did not response.

 

7)       The complainant contended that the act of the Ops caused mental and Physical pain and financial strain and deficiency of service and unlawful trade practice.  Hence, the complainant prayed for allow the complaint as prayed.

 

8)       After receipt of notice, Op-1 appeared through advocate and contest the case, Op No:2 & 3 though notice served not appeared.  Hence, placed as exparte.

 

9)       Op-1 admitted that Op-1 Ibibo Group private Limited has n online travel portal by the name and style of www.goibibo.com (Website) Op-1 denies all the allegations except those which are specifically admitted in his objections.

 

10)     The Op-1 contended that  U/Sec 11 (2) of C.P. Act the entire cause of action is based on bus ticket for travelling from Bijapur to Mumbai which was scheduled on 29/05/2013.  It is stated that this Op-1 neither has any branch office nor carries business at Bijapur it is clear that no cause of action either in part or whole has arisen at Bijapur.  Hence, this Hon’ble forum has no jurisdiction to dispose of the complaint.  Hence, complainant is liable to be dismissed.

 

11)     It is stated that Op helps its customer booking bus tickets through its website (www.goibibo.com) which is offered by various bus Operators, this Op acts as a passive conduct between the bus operators  and customers Op has no control over the bus operators and this Op is not responsible for action/interaction or omission of the bus operators same has been admitted and agreed by the complainants under booking terms and conditions while booking the tickets it is submitted by Op-1 that complainant voluntarily visited  the website and booked the tickets which was offered by Op-2 knowing after carefully reading terms and conditions of Opposite parties.  Complainant after being satisfied with bus timings ticket price and terms and conditions booked three tickets from Bijapur to Mumbai schedule to departure on 29/05/2013 at  22:15 hours.

 

12)     It is submitted by Op that Op-1 is not responsible for delay arrival of bus at the boarding part of complainant.  have agreed the same under the terms and conditions this Op is only intermediately act as agent between customer and booking ticket for bus operator and this Op-1 is not liable in any manner for acts and omissions of the Opposite party and consequences aroused due to such acts and omission.

 

13)     It is stated that this Op has to refund of the bus tickets.  However, the transaction was failed and not completed due to technical errors, the liability of Op-1 is limited to extend of issuance of ticket, providing information available to it and further this Op is not liable for any consequences arising out of acts or omission of bus operators.  Hence, the complainant is dismissed with cost.

 

14)     Both the parties have filed their affidavits in support of their case.  The complainant has produced 8 documents, same are marked as Ex. C-1 to 8 respectively, Op-1 has produced 3 documents same are marked as Ex Op-1 to 3.  Op filed written arguments.  Heard the arguments.  Now the following points that arise for our consideration in deciding the case are. 

 

1)Whether the complaint is a consumer dispute?

2)Whether this forum has jurisdiction to try and dispose of

complaint?

3)Whether the Ops have rendered deficiency in service to the complainant?

4)Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as is sought for?

 5) What order?

15)     Answer to the above points.

 

             1) In affirmative.

    2) In affirmative.

    3) In affirmative.

              4) In affirmative.

              5) As per Final order.

 

 

REASONS.

 

16)    Point No.1:-  There is no dispute on the point that complainant availed service from Ops once the service is taken by the complainant is proved definitely complainant is a consumer and if dispute arise between consumer and service provider it is come under consumer dispute.  Here in the case also it is admitted by the Op-1 that complainant book tickets from Op No:1. Hence, this is a consumer dispute.  Hence, we answer to the above points in affirmative.

17) Point No.2:-  In respect of jurisdiction the complainant booked ticket from Op-1, from Bijapur to Mumbai this aspect is also not disputed complainant booked the ticket and as per the schedule time and scheduled date complainant reached the bus stop in Bijapur.  But the Ops not allowed complainant and her accompanies to board the bus.  It means as per U/Sec 11 the cause of action, wholly or in part arises in Bijapur.  Hence, we answer to the point No:2 in affirmative.

 

18) Point No.3:-  There is no dispute in respect of booking of online ticket from the complainant and there is no dispute in respect of complainant and their accompanies are not allowed to board the bus.  Further Op not denied the complainant traveled Bijapur to Pune by train under Tatkal Quota, which was evidenced by document Ex.3 complainants husband made several communication through mail to Op-1 for compensate the complainant.  But no response Op-1 contended that he is only mediator and there is no deficiency on the part of him, in respect of issuance of ticket.  The Op-1 produced Ex. Op-1 is Bus booking terms and conditions going through terms “not allowed to board the bus,” this terms is not mentioned in the terms.  So, it means Op-1 is deficiency of service towards his customer not only this they are indulging un-trade practice.  Hence, looking to any angle we come to conclusion that there is a deficiency of service.  Hence, we answer to the point No:3 in affirmative.

 

 

18) Point No.4:- In view of the above observations at point No:3 the complainant is entitled to receive compensation of refund of ticket amount of Rs.2,500/- along with additional expenditure Rs.8,000/- with mental agony of Rs.3,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-.

 

19)    Point No.5:-  In the result the complaint of the complainant is fit to be allowed in part.  Hence we proceed to p[ass the following order.

O R D E R

 

1)The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part.

2)The Op No:1 to  3 jointly and severally to refund the bus fare of Rs.2,500/- (Rs.Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) with 8% interest from the date of ticket i.e. 27/05/2013.

3)The Op No:1 to 3 jointly and severally ordered to pay Rs.8,000/- (Rs. Eight Thousand Only) towards additional expenditure with 8% interest incurred by the complainant from the date i.e. 27/05/2013.

4)The Ops jointly and severally ordered to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rs. Three Thousand Only) towards mental agony and Rs.3,000/- (Rs. Three Thousand Only) towards litigation cost.

5)The Ops shall comply with this order within two months from the date of this order.  Failure of which the above said amount i.e. 2,500/- + 8,000/- shall carry an interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of booking of ticket i.e. 27/05/2013 to realization.

6)Free copy of this order shall be sent to the parties

immediately.

   (This order is dictated to the Stenographer, transcript edited,

corrected and then pronounced in the open forum on this 28^th day of December 2016).

 

 

 

Sri. S. H. Hosalli  President.

Smt. G. S. Kalyani     Lady Member.