Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/402/2020

Samridhi Singla - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Makemytrip India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sudesh Kumar Pandey & Ravi Nayak

10 Jan 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                            

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/402/2020
Date of Institution	:	23/09/2020
Date of Decision	:	10/01/2024

1. Samridhi Singla
2. Samar Singla

House No.1650, Sector 7, Chandigarh.

… Complainants

V E R S U S

1. M/s Makemytrip Travel Services Private Limited, through the Managing Director.

Registered Address :

B-36, 1^st Floor, Pusa Road, New Delhi Central, Delhi 110005.

Alternate Address :

DLF Building No.5, Tower B, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase 2, Sector 25, Gurugram, Haryana 122002.

2. M/s Ethiopian Airlines Group, through its Managing Director.

Registered Office :

104, Windfall, Sahar Plaza Complex, Andheri Kurla Road, Chakala Andheri East, Mumbai 400059.

3. Avutapalli Kamal Kishore, Director, M/s Makemytrip Travel Services Pvt. Ltd.
4. Vikas Saini, Director, M/s Makemytrip Travel Services Pvt. Ltd.
5. Indresh Kumar Gupta, Director, M/s Makemytrip Travel Services Pvt. Ltd.

OPs 3 to 5 having Registered Address :

B-36, 1^st Floor, Pusa Road, New Delhi Central, Delhi 110005.

Alternate Address :

DLF Building No.5, Tower B, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase 2, Sector 25, Gurugram, Haryana 122002.

6. Tadesse Tilahun Tessema, Director, M/s Ethiopian Airlines Group.

Registered Office :

104, Windfall, Sahar Plaza Complex, Andheri Kurla Road, Chakala Andheri East, Mumbai 400059.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	None for complainants
	:	Sh. Tushar Chaudhary, Advocate, Proxy for Sh. Nitin Bhasin, Advocate for OPs 1 & 3 to 5
	:	OPs 2 & 6 ex-parte.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Samridhi Singla and another, complainants against the aforesaid opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that OP-1 M/s Make My Trip India Private Limited, is an online travel organization dealing with flight, hotel and holiday bookings etc. and OPs 3 to 5 are its Directors.  OP-2 M/s Ethiopian Airlines is the air travel service provider and is covered under the Air Aggregation dealt in by MakeMytrip.com and OP-6 is the Director of OP-2. The complainants are the directors of M/s Click Labs Private Limited and on 30.8.2019 they had approached the OPs by paying an amount of ₹71,712/- vide invoice (Annexure C-3) for booking air tickets for their journey from Dubai to Cape Town on 9.9.2019 for attending an official meeting regarding investment in the said company to be held in the evening of 10.9.2019.  The OPs confirmed the booking as per details tabulated in para 6 of the consumer complaint. However, when the complainants reached the airport at Dubai, they were informed that the flight bearing No.ET-601, which was scheduled to leave at 04:25 hours on 9.9.2019 was delayed and due to delay in flight, complainants reached late at Addis Ababa, where the complainants were further informed that the connecting flight has been rescheduled to leave after 24 hours i.e. on 10.9.2019.  Consequent upon the same, complainants were accommodated in a very bad and cheap hotel provided by the OPs without any wifi and also the complainants were constrained to hire their own taxi to reach the hotel arranged by the OPs.  Thereafter the complainants reached Addis Ababa, 24 hours late than the scheduled time. Since as per the schedule stipulated by the subject ticket, the layover time between the connecting flights under the ticket was outlined to be 35 minutes, but, on account of rescheduling of the flight and accommodation of the complainants by the OPs in another flight with different flight timing, complainants had to wait for lay over for 24 hours at Addis Ababa instead of 35 minutes.  Copies of the flight history for Ethiopian airline flight are Annexure C-5 and C-6, which makes it clear that the subject flight, which was scheduled to depart at 4:25 on 9.9.2019 had actually departed at 1:05 a.m. on the next day i.e. 10.9.2019 and arrived at Addis Ababa at 5.09 a.m on 10.9.2019 instead of scheduled time of 7:45 a.m. on 9.9.2019, as a result of which even the complainants were compelled to extend their stay at Cape Town for one more day. The scheduled meeting of complainants was also cancelled due to the said delay. Due to the aforesaid acts, complainants suffered irreparable loss in their business and they are entitled for pecuniary damages on account of the harassment suffered by them. In this manner, the aforesaid act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs 1 and 3 to 5 resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action, jurisdiction and also that the answering OPs are merely a facilitator for booking confirmed air tickets and hotel bookings on behalf of the customers.  On merits, admitted that the subject tickets were booked on 30.8.2019 for journey on 9.9.2019, but, alleged that if there is any delay in the flight, then the answering OPs cannot be held liable as only the airline (OP-2) can be exclusively liable for that.  It is further alleged that the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) has already issued guidelines for compensating the passengers in case there is delay in the flight.  It is further alleged that the complainants have malafidely impleaded the answering OP-1, including its Directors, as party in the present consumer complaint.  On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainants is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. OPs 2 to 6 did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, hence they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 1.1.2021.
4. Despite grant of sufficient opportunity, rejoinder was not filed by complainants to rebut stand of OPs.

2. In order to prove their case, contesting parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting OPs and also gone through the file carefully, including written arguments.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the contesting parties that the complainants had booked two tickets for their journey from Dubai to Cape Town, by availing the services of OP-1, on payment of ₹71,712/-, as is also evident from Annexure C-3 and C-4, in order to attend a meeting there, and there was delay in the departure of the flight from the scheduled time as the flight was scheduled to depart at 04:25 a.m. on 9.9.2019 whereas the same had actually departed at 1:05 a.m. on the next day i.e. 10.9.2019, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and the complainants are entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainants or if there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the contesting OPs and the consumer complaint, being not maintainable against them, is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the contesting OPs.
   2. By way of the instant consumer complaint, the complainants have sought the refund of the entire amount of air ticket i.e. ₹71,712/- which was paid by them for their journey from Dubai to Cape Town.  However, as it is an admitted case of the complainants that they had performed the aforesaid journey through the subject tickets, albeit with delay, to our mind, complainants are not entitled for the refund of the ticket amount, especially when they have used the same. 
   3. However, when it has come on record that there was delay of around 21 hours in the scheduled departure of the flight and nothing has come on behalf of the OP/airline in order to prove if the said delay was on account of some force majeure event, it is safe to hold that there is definitely deficiency in service on the part of the airline/OPs 2 & 6, as a result of which complainants had to suffer a lot in a foreign land because due to the delay in arrival at Cape Town, complainants missed the scheduled meeting and the very purpose of their visit was defeated, especially when the entire evidence led by the complainants is unrebutted by OPs 2 & 6.
   4. So far as the contesting OPs are concerned, since there is no material on record showing if there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part on account of the delay in the departure of the flight, as narrated above, it is unsafe to hold that the contesting OPs can also be held liable for the same.
   5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is safe to hold that the complainants have successfully proved the cause of action set up in the consumer complaint and the same deserves to succeed against OPs 2 & 6.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs 2 and 6 are directed as under :-

1. to pay ₹30,000/- to the complainants as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment alongwith interest @ 9% w.e.f. 10.9.2019 onwards;
2. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainants as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by OPs 2 & 6 within forty five days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the payable amount, mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.
6. Since no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice has been proved against OPs 1 and 3 to 5, the consumer complaint against them stands dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
8. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

10/01/2024 hg	Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
	Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member
	Sd/- [Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member