BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.134 of 2016
Date of Instt. 21.03.2016
Date of Decision: 12.12.2017
Rajesh Gupta S/o Sh. M.R. Gupta aged about 46 years R/o House No. 96, Arjan Nagar, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd., 101, 11th Floor, Tower-B, Unitech Cyber Park, Sector 39, Opposite HSBC Bank, Gurgaon-122001 through its MD/CEO Sh. Dhruv Singh.
Transaero Airlines IGI Airport, New Delhi, through its Chief Executive.
M/s Bhatia Travels, Jalandhar, Near Bus Stand, Jalandhar through its Manager.
..….…Opposite parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh. Jasbir Singh, Adv Counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Gurcharan Singh, Adv Counsel for the OP No.1.
OP No.2 given up.
OP No.3 exparte.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. This complaint is filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant on 14.07.2015 made a contact on website of Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd. i.e. Yatra.com and booked an air ticket from New Delhi to New York, schedule for 08.01.2016 in the name of his son Mr. Parth Gupta, aged 19 years, a student of Penn State University (Pennsylvania). On prevailing quoted cost of Air Ticket from New Delhi to New York an amount of Rs.29,717/- was transferred in M/s Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd. Bank account on 14.07.2015 through CITI Bank, Jalandhar from account of the complainant. On receipt of the payment from the complainant M/s Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd, issued a ticket No.8925051832 Airline PNR No.P4N59 of Transaero Airlines flight UN544 departure time 04:00 from New Delhi Terminal No.3 to Mascow and Transaero Airlines flight UN-1116 for onward journey to New York with the assurance that this ticket was genuine, valid and of confirm status. This ticket was issued in the name of Parth Gupta complainant's son. This ticket also contained instructions for check in 3 hours prior to the departure time. Believing the assurance from M/s Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd., also got reserved a bus ticket from New York Airport to State College P.A vide Ticket No.163312 through M/s Goto Bus.com and made a payment of #35 (Rs.2345/-) for the bus journey, schedule for 08.01.2016, departure 06:00 PM as the arrival time of the flight booked by the OP was six hours earlier.
2. That the complainant alongwith his son Parth Gupta reached New Delhi at about 11:00 AM on 07.01.2016, matter being of urgent nature relating to the study of complainant's son. The complainant made contacts at the OPs toll free number 1800 5000 900 and was shocked to know that the Transaero have withdrawn the flight for which the complainant had made payment and the OP had issued the ticket. However, the complainant was assured that alternative arrangement were made very soon and intimation to this effect will be conveyed to the complainant by the OP. Copy of letter written to OP regarding the non availability of flight is attached. Various efforts were made by the complainant became futile and instead of admitting fault and arranging flight as assured the OP stopped listening the request of the complainant. The OP also failed to intimate the status of the withdrawn flight to the complainant during intermediate period of booking on 14.07.2015 and flight schedule i.e. 08.01.2016.
3. That finding the ticket issued by the OP is invalid and behaviour of the OP is unprofessional, negligent and careless, matter being of utmost urgent nature the complainant was left with no other alternative except to purchase the only available return ticket for the current date and had to pay Rs.81,200/- as the cost of ticket No.125-1650370957 from New Delhi to New York and back from British Airways. This ticket was arranged by M/s Bhatia Travels, Jalandhar. The complainant mental agony did not end here in Delhi but continued on reaching New York also when the son of the complainant could not reach at the bus stop, resulting forfeiture of the cost of the bus ticket of #35/-. The complainant's son also had to take taxi for staying with the relatives in the intermediate period between the next bus schedules for State College and for that the son of the complainant have to pay #300/- i.e. 20,100/-. The complainant's son also had to purchase a fresh ticket from New York to State College for #49/-. Thus, the complainant's son had to spend #349/- extra. On the basis of the facts and circumstances narrated above, prima facie proves that there was serious deficiency on the part of OP in rendering the proper services to the complainant. The OP is also responsible for the following losses suffered by the complainant's son. Due to failure on the part of the OP in rendering proper services to the complainant. The OP also acted negligently and careless and even a legal notice was also served upon the OP, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund the charges of the ticket alongwith charges of bus ticket and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, which comes to Rs.2,06,583/- with interest @ 18% per annum.
4. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but complaint against OP No.2 was withdrawn by the complainant by giving up the OP No.2, whereas the service of OP No.3 was duly effected, but despite service, OP No.3 did not come present and ultimately, OP No.3 was proceeded against exparte.
5. OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and contested the complaint by filing a written reply, wherein took preliminary objections that the complainant instituted a complaint against the company, Yatra Online Private Limited, which is an online ticketing service provider and travel agent, providing facility through the medium of internet and phone. That the complainant can only file this consumer complaint against OP No.2, which in true sense can be called the Service Provider to the complainant. The answering OP is not responsible for flight services provided under the bookings made by customers. Thus, any allegations of deficiency in service can be maintainable by the complainant only against OP No.2 and further alleged that the information displayed on the website of answering OP relating to the flight in question, was provided by OP No.2 and the booking made and tickets issued by the answering OP to the complainant were correct and valid in every respect. It was OP No.2, who canceled the complainant's flight for traveling from New Delhi to New York unilaterally and without adequate prior intimation to the complainant and further alleged that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. It is further averred that the complainant has also accepted the Clause 5.3 of the Master User Agreement and as such, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed outright for no cause of action lying against the answering OP. The entire cause of action and subject matter relates to cancellation of a scheduled flight by OP No.2. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased a ticket through email from OP No.1, but the remaining allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
6. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C14 and closed the evidence.
7. Similarly, counsel for the OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP1/A alongwith document i.e. Master User Agreement as Ex.OP/1 and closed the evidence of the OP No.1.
8. We bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by respective counsel for the parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.
9. It is not denied by the OP No.1 M/s Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd. that a ticket Ex.C-2 was purchased by the complainant for his son through email from OP No.1 i.e. Yatra.com and departure of the said air flight was on 08.01.2016, it is also established that the complainant has got booked a bus e-ticket for further traveling to the destination i.e. college of the son of the complainant and copy of the bus ticket is Ex.C3, but as per version of the complainant, when they reached at Delhi Airport on 07.01.2016 at about 11:00 am, he came to know from Toll Free No.1800 5000 900 that the flight in question is canceled because the said airline Transaero is bankrupt and from this information, the complainant shocked and he immediately gave information to the OP No.1, vide email message Ex.C-4 and further the complainant gave an other email message to the officer of the OP No.1 Vandana Madam, vide email message dated 12.01.2016, copy of the same is Ex.C-6, but no action was taken on this request for refund of the air ticket price and then again complainant sent an other email message Ex.C-9 and demanded the return the price of ticket, so purchased by the complainant or made alternative arrangement to send his son to New York and also demanded the fare of bus from New York Airport to State College, but again no reply was given and even legal notice Ex.C-10 was given to the OP and one email reply received from the OP No.1, which is Ex.C-14, whereby they gave assurance for return of the booking amount of Rs.29,717/-, but whereas the complainant has spent more than Rs.2,06,583/- for sending his son to an alternative flight and therefore, the complainant is entitled for that amount alongwith compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and interest there on.
10. The OP No.1 is not denied that the air ticket Ex.C-2 was got booked by the complainant through OP No.1 being an agent of the airline, if so then, it is primary duty of the agent to be-aware about the status of the said flight, if there is any change of flight regarding time or cancellation of flight, then its information should be provided to the customer immediately, the plea taken by the OP No.1 that the cancellation of the flight is not within the purview of the OP No.1 rather it is the domain of the OP No.2, who is a service provider, but this submission of OP No.1 is not on any sound footing because the OP No.2 has no contact number of the complainant/customer and moreover, every thing is available with the OP No.1, who is the agent and then duty casted upon the OP No.1 to inform the complainant well within time in regard to cancellation of flight due to any reason, so that the complainant could make alternative arrangement prior to reaching to Airport New Delhi, but admittedly in this case, the OP No.1 had never informed the complainant in regard to cancellation of the flight rather this factum came to the notice of the complainant at the 11th hour i.e. after reaching at Delhi Airport prior to few hour of the said flight and then in emergency, the complainant has to purchase alternative ticket for his son, who had to go for his study, which is very urgent matter and for that purpose, the complainant was having no option except to purchase the ticket, whatsoever available, the ticket was available only for return basis and as such, without any needs of return ticket, the complainant was bound to purchase the said ticket and copy of the ticket is Ex.C-5 and its receipt for payment is Ex.C-7, showing the value of the return ticket Rs.81,200/-. So, under these circumstances, we find that the other plea taken by the OP that there is a user agreement Ex.OP/1, but the said user agreement neither signed by the complainant nor its copy was ever supplied to the complainant, therefore, complainant is not bound by this user agreement Ex.OP/1 and further the OP has also took a plea that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, but this argument of the learned counsel for the OP No.1 is not acceptable because the complainant has purchased the ticket from Jalandhar through email from OP No.1 and payment was also made from the bank of the complainant at Jalandhar and therefore, part of the cause of action also accrued at Jalandhar and as such, the Jalandhar district Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.
11. In the light of above detailed discussion, we come to conclusion that the complainant is able to establish the charges against the OP No.1 and accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OP No.1 is directed to pay the charges of the air ticket fare, so spent by the complainant for purchasing a second time ticket to send his son to abroad i.e. Rs.81,200/- and further OP No.1 is directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant. The OP No.1 is also directed to pay interest on the price of the ticket i.e. Rs.81,200/- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing complaint till realization. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. The complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
12. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh
12.12.2017 Member President
