Order No. 14 dt. 24/04/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant in order to travel Hong Kong via Singapore and for that purpose he purchased a ticket from Make My Trip on 22.04.2013 and paid a sum of Rs.27,602/-. The complainant also purchased the return ticket through the o.p.for return journey from Hong Kong to Kolkata via Singapore. Due to unavoidable circumstances and the complainant was not in a position to travel on 08.05.2013 to 14.05.2013 and in order to inform the said fact the complainant sent an email to the o.p. The complainant requested the concerned department for shifting his ticket upon payment of Rs.1,136/- + MMT fees of Rs.500/- + difference amount of ticket price but the o.p. mentioned that the price of the ticket is not refundable as per the terms and conditions. On the basis of the said fact that the complainant prayed for refund of amount of the ticket of Rs.27,602/- + interest and compensation of Rs.50,000/-.
The o.ps contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. The o.ps stated that being an online transaction, the booking was directly made by the complainant and there was no manual/human interference at the end of o.p. while making the desired booking. Therefore the complainant at no point of time can say that he was not having prior knowledge of the ticket being non-refundable and non-changeable and the liability of the said ignorance at the end of the complainant cannot be burdened upon o.p. The complainant has not made Singapore Air Lines as a party to this case. As per the said airlines and the fare rules the ticket was non-refundable and non-changeable. The complainant and o.p. are governed by terms and conditions agreed between them at the time of booking and as enumerated in User Agreement. On the basis of said fact the o.p has prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided :
- Whether the complainant booked ticket through o.p.1 for visiting to Hong Kong via Singapore;
- Whether the complainant informing the o.p.1 regarding his cancellation of the said programme;
- Whether the complainant demanded the amount;
- Whether there was deficiency in service;
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant being an officer of the Bank expressed his desired to visit Hong Kong booked ticket from the o.p.1 and it was settled that the date of journey was 08.05.2013 and the complainant wanted to return to Kolkata from Hong Kong via Singapore and for that purpose also he also purchased ticket through o.p.1. The complainant all on a sudden had some difficulties for which he cancelled the trip and also informed the o.p. regarding the difficulties faced by him. Accordingly the complainant after some days demanded the amount paid by him but no action was taken by the o.ps for which the complainant had to file this case claiming refund of the amount and also prayed for compensation.
Ld lawyer for the o.ps argued that the tickets purchased by the complainant through online and the Singapore Air Line was the service provider for the said journey but the said Singapore Air Lines has not been made a party in this case. Apart from the said fact the ticket purchased by the complainant was non-refundable and non-changeable as per the Air Line fare rules. In view of the said fact the o.ps prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submission of the respective parties it is admitted fact that the complainant purchased e-ticket through the o.p. It is also an admitted fact that to and fro journey tickets were purchased by the complainant through o.p.1. O.p.1 claimed that the tickets were non-refundable but in the ticket itself it was not mentioned that the price of the ticket was not refundable. The complainant before filing of this case sent several emails to the o.ps and the o.p. all through denied to refund the money. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant wanted to have the money after necessary deduction. But the said fact was also ignored by the o.p. Immediately after the sudden illness of the complainant the complainant wanted to cancel the said programme. The o.p. was the service provider for the purpose of the said journey and for the said trip initial work was done by the o.p.1 by providing ticket to the complainant on payment of money. The o.ps have evaded the responsibility of refund of money and for that purpose unnecessarily dragged the name of Singapore Aillines. The o.ps have prayed for dismissal of the case for not making Singapore Airlines as a party to this case. The plea made by the o.p is not tenable since the complainant failed to avail the said trip and he informed the said fact before the date of journey and in the ticket itself as there was no mention of the fact that ticket was not refundable. Therefore we hold that there was deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps and also unfair trade practice adopted by the o.ps.
Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered.
that the case no.529/2014 is allowed on contest with cost against the o.ps. The o.p.1 and o.p.2 are jointly and/or severally liable to pay to the complainant to refund the amount of Rs.27,602/-(Rupees Twenty Seven thousand Six hundred two) only along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
