CC No.739.2016

Filed on 19.05.2016

Disposed on.30.11.2017

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BENGALURU– 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 30^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.739/2016

PRESENT:

Sri.  H.S.RAMAKRISHNA B.Sc., LL.B.

        PRESIDENT

              Smt.L.MAMATHA, B.A., (Law), LL.B.

                     MEMBER

                                         V/S

ORDER

BY SRI.H.S.RAMAKRISHNA, PRESIDENT

1. This Complaint was filed by the Complainant on 19.05.2016 U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and praying to pass an Order directing the Opposite Parties to pay sum of Rs.66,000/- for the additional expense incurred by the Complainant and a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and other reliefs.
2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under:

In the Complaint, the Complainant alleges that the Complainant has booked Air Tickets from Bangalore to Hong Kong and return with a stopover at Kuala Lumpur with Opposite Party over phone.  An E-ticket was issued on 25^th September 2015 with Booking ID:IN1508B4S602311 and paid sum of Rs.62,000/- for two passengers.  The journey day is on 20^th January 2016 in Malayasian Airlines from Bangalore to Kuala Lumpur arriving at 18.30 hours and the second flight departing from Kuala Lumpur to Hong Kong the following day i.e., on 21.01.2016 at 16.00 hrs and return journey from Hong Kong to Bangalore on 27.01.2016 departing Hong Kong at 14.40 hrs and reach Bangalore via Kuala Lumpur at 23.30 hrs by the Malayasian Airlines.  Hence, all arrangements were made for a Malayasian Visa, stay for a night at hotel “Holiday Inn” at Kuala Lumpur and Kuala Lumpur city tour for a day and drop at Airport at 14.00 hrs cost around Rs.18,000/- for the stay.  On 06.01.2016 the Complainant received mail from Opposite Party stating that the flight departure from Kuala Lumpur to Hong Kong on 21.01.2016 is retimed from 16.00 hrs in the evening to 09.15 hrs in the morning an advancement of 7.00 hrs which was not acceptable as all arrangements were made for his stay and tour of Kuala Lumpur, and same was conveyed to M/s Makemytrip over the phone and later discussed almost every day by phone and mail.  The Complainant also visited the Airlines local office, but the representative of the airlines to go back to the Agency which has booked the tickets, they are no way concerned and are not authorize to modify the ticket.  Inspite of deliberating this issue till 18.01.2016 with Opposite Party, it was not resolved stating he wait for another 24 hrs.  Therefore, booked another air ticket starting from Kuala Lumpur on 21.01.2016 at 16.25 hrs to proceed to Hong Kong, which cost of Rs.15,000/-.  In spite of informing Makemytrip team that he would have limited access to any mode of communication in a foreign land the Makemytrip team failed in dealing with the issue prior to the date of travel.  On 25.01.2016 by means of a telephone call from M/s Makemytrip stating that rest of journey from Hong Kong to Bangalore has been cancelled by the Malaysian Airlines as he did not take the flight from Kuala Lumpur to Hong Kong on 21.01.2016 for which the Complainant could not understand the reason till today as it was no mentioned in the ticket.  He was really left helpless in a foreign land not knowing what to do.  With much difficulty, after regaining his control he called a friend in Bangalore to help with the return tickets who obliged for it, which cost Rs.46,000/-.  Added to this, as the timing of the Complainant ferry from Macau to Hong Kong was changed, he had to buy new tickets once again, costing Rs.2,500/- and ultimately he returned to Bangalore.  Hence, this complaint. 

3. Even though notice was served on Opposite Party No.1, but Opposite Party No.1 failed to put their appearance.  Hence, the Opposite Party No.1 placed ex-parte. 
4. In response to the notice, even though Opposite Party No.2 appeared through their Counsel but failed to file their version even behind 45 days.  For that reason, the version filed by the Opposite Party No.2 after 45 days was not received.  Thereafter, the Opposite Party No.2 filed Interlocutory Application under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure along with version and list of documents and after hearing both parties the application filed by the Opposite Party No.2 under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for receiving the version of the Opposite Party No.2 is rejected.    This order is not been challenged by the Opposite Party No.2.  Hence, there is no version filed by the Opposite Party No.2 on record. 
5. The Complainant, Sri.Nagesh V.Kadam filed his affidavit by way of evidence and closed his side.  On behalf of the Opposite Party No.1 & 2, the affidavit of one Sri.Ekank Mehra has been filed.   Heard the argument of Complainant.

 6.     The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the Complainant has proved the alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties ?
2. If so, to what relief the Complainant is entitled ?

7.     Our findings on the above points are:-

                POINT (1):-  Negative

POINT (2):-  As per the final Order

REASONS

8. POINT NO.1:- It is the case of the Complainant that on 25.09.2015 the Complainant over phone booked E-tickets for two Passengers from Bangalore to Hong Kong and return with a stopover by paying a sum of Rs.62,000/- and departure at Bangalore on 20^th January 2016 at 12 hrs arriving Kuala Lumpur at 18.30 hrs and second flight departing from Kuala Lumpur to Hong Kong the following day i.e., on 21.01.2016 at 16.00 hrs.  Further the return Journey from Hong Kong to Bangalore on 27.01.2016 departing Hong Kong at 14.40 hrs and reach Bangalore via Kuala Lumpur at 23.30 hrs by the Malayasian Airlines.  The Complainant made all arrangements for a Malayasian Visa, stay for a night at hotel “Holiday Inn” at Kuala Lumpur and Kuala Lumpur city tour for a day and drop at Airport at 14.00 hrs cost around Rs.18,000/- for the stay.  On 06.01.2016 the Complainant received mail from Opposite Parties stating that the flight departure from Kuala Lumpur to Hong Kong on 21.01.2016 is retimed from 16.00 hrs in the evening to 09.15 hrs in the morning an advancement of 7.00 hrs which was not acceptable to the Complainant as all arrangements were made for his stay and tour of Kuala Lumpur and same was informed by the Opposite Parties over the phone and later discussed almost every day by phone and mail.  Inspite of deliberating this issue till 18.01.2016 with Opposite Parties, it was not resolved stating he wait for another 24 hrs.  Therefore, booked another air ticket starting from Kuala Lumpur on 21.01.2016 at 16.25 hrs to proceed to Hong Kong, which cost of Rs.15,000/-.  In spite of informing Opposite Parties.  On 25.01.2016 by means of a telephone call from Opposite Party stating that rest of journey from Hong Kong to Bangalore has been cancelled by the Malaysian Airlines as he did not take the flight from Kuala Lumpur to Hong Kong on 21.01.2016.   The Complainant with the help of his friend in Bangalore make arrangements for return tickets to Bangalore at the cost of Rs.46,000/-.  In order to establish this fact, the Complainant in his sworn testimony, he has reiterated the same and produced E-ticket.  As looking into the E-ticket, the Complainant had booked E-ticket through Opposite Parties from Bangalore to Hong Kong via Kuala Lumpur and the Complainant suppressed to departure from Bangalore on 20^th January 2016 at 12 hrs and reaching Kuala Lumpur at 18.40 hrs again from Kuala Lumpur the Complainant has to departure at 16 hrs on 21.01.2016 and to reach Hong Kong at 19.35 hrs on 21.01.2016.  This E-ticket is issued on 25.09.2016 and further reveals that the Complainant supposed to departure from Hong Kong on 27.01.2016 at 14.40 hrs reaching Kuala Lumpur on the same day at 18.35 hrs and departing Kuala Lumpur at 22 hrs on 27.01.2016 and reaching the Bangalore at 23.30 hrs on 27.01.2016.  From this evidence, it is very clear that the Complainant booked the round trip flight ticket travelling from Bangalore to Hong Kong via Kuala Lumpur and thereafter back to Bangalore by paying a sum of Rs.62,000/-. 
9. Further it is coming the evidence, the Complainant made all arrangements for a Malaysian Visa, stay for a night at hotel Holiday Inn and a City tour for a day and drop at Airport at 14.00 hrs by spending Rs.18,000/-.  Even in support of this, the Complainant in his sworn testimony, he has reiterated the same and produced Hotel Confirmation Voucher.   As looking into this document, it is clear that the Complainant had booked the hotel for their stay at Kuala Lumpur check-in date on 20^th of January 2016 and checkout on 21.01.2016 in Holiday Inn Hotel at Kuala Lumpur.
10. Further it is come in the evidence of the Complainant on 06.01.2016 the Complainant received a mail from Opposite Parties stating that the departure from Kuala Lumpur to Hong Kong on 21.01.2016 is retimed from 16.00 hrs in the evening to 09.15 hrs in the morning an advancement of 7.00 hrs.  Even this evidence is also supported by the Traveler Information issued by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant.  From this document, it is very clear there is retiming of the flight i.e., from Kuala Lumpur to Hong Kong instead of 16.00 hrs it was in the morning at 9.15 p.m and reaching the Hong Kong at 13.00 hrs so this information given by the Opposite Party on 06.01.2016 i.e., before this stopping of the journey i.e., on 20.01.2016.  After receiving the mail of the Complainant is not interested and convenient for retiming Complainant ought not started the journey from Bangalore itself and make a proper alternative arrangements by cancelling the trip.  On the other hand, instead of doing so the Complainant started his journey on 20.01.2016 as per the round trip booked by the Complainant.  No doubt the Complainant had booked the hotel Inn at Kuala Lumpur and also make other same arrangements by spending sum of Rs.18,000/- but knowing fully well that there is a reschedule of flight from Kuala Lumpur to Hong Kong.  They could have cancel the booking of hotel and other arrangements if the said timings is not convenient, instead of doing so they started their journey.  Due to non-completion of round trip booked by the Complainant i.e., from Bangalore to Kuala Lumpur, Kuala Lumpur to Hong Kong and Hong Kong to Kuala Lumper then Kuala Lumpur to Bangalore, the Malaysian Airlines has been cancelled the tickets of the Complainant as no show, thereby due to the non-boarding of flight by the Complainant.   As per the schedule tickets booked by the Complainant were cancelled but not due to any other reason.  Furthermore, the Opposite Parties have render their service i.e., for receiving amount of Rs.62,000/- they booked tickets for the Complainant and the said tickets were confirmed.  Thereby, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant fails to establish that there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties and the cancellation of ticket is done by the Malaysian Airlines.   As a result of no show and further retiming of the flight is also done by the Malaysina Airlines reschedule is the discretionary.  Depend on a particular Airlines policies, thereby reschedule of the flight is also not within hand and control of Opposite Parties, thereby there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties as alleged by the Complainant.  On the other hand, the Opposite Parties well in advance intimated the reschedule of the flight if it is not convenient for the Complainant they could have cancel the entire tickets for their journey and to rebook the tickets, instead of doing so they started journey on 20^th of January 2016 but absolutely, there is no deficiency of service of the Opposite Parties as alleged by the Complainant and the Complainant fails to prove the alleged deficiency of service by the Opposite Parties.  Hence, this point is held in the Negative. 

11. POINT NO.2:- In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this, 30^th day of November 2017)

        MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT

LIST OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS

 Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant:

1. Sri.Nagesh V.Kadam, who being the Complainant has filed her affidavit.

 List of documents filed by the Complainant:

1. Copy of E-Ticket
2. Copy of Invoice
3. Copy of Traveller Information
4. Copy of Hotel Confirmation Voucher
5. Copy of Travel Itinerary
6. Copy of payment details
7. Copy of Email correspondences

Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

1. Sri.Ekank Mehra, Authorized Signatory of Opposite Party No.1 & 2 by way of affidavit.

List of documents filed by the Opposite Party:

1. Copy of all the mails sent to the parties by the Opposite Parties
2. Copy of user agreement. 

MEMBER                                                     PRESIDENT