Delhi

New Delhi

CC/356/2018

Amit Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Make My Trip India Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

02 Aug 2022

ORDER

 

 

                                            DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VI,

                                           DISTT.NEW DELHI, M-BLOCK, VIKAS BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

CC/356/2018

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Amit Garg

184, PKT-B, DDA Flats

Sukhdev Vihar

New Delhi-110025

                                                                                COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

 

Make My Trip (India)Private Limited

F-26,First Floor,

Connaught Place Inner Circle,

Opposite Palika Bazaar,

Connaught Place,

New Delhi-110001                                                 OPPOSITE PARTY                                                      

Quorum:

Ms. PoonamChaudhry, President

          Sh. Bariq Ahmad , Member

          Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

                                                                   Dated of Institution: 11.09.2018

                                                                   Date of Order         :   02.08.2022

 

O R D E R

POONAM CHAUDHRY, PRESIDENT

1. The present complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 hereinafter referred to as the CP Act. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant planned a trip to Helsinki, Finland with his wife and made a booking in this regard through website of Make My Trip, Opposite Party (hereinafter referred as OP). It is alleged that at the time of booking, it was never displayed on the website of the OP that during halt at London Airport, transit visa is required and complainant proceeded with the payment for the bookings. It is further stated that on the day of travel, the complainant was denied check-in at the Airport and complainant had to rebook the entire trip on his own at a higher price and complainant has allegedly suffered huge financial losses and mental agony due deficient services of the OP.
2. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint, praying that OP be directed to pay Rs. 1,37,015/- towards financial losses and to pay compensation of Rs. 1,37,015/- towards mental harassment.
3. OP contested the case, written statement was filed taking objection that the complaint is not maintainable being misconceived and vexatious as there has been no deficiency on the part of the OP. It was further stated that the booking in question was governed by terms mentioned on the website which clearly mentioned that acquiring visa is customer’s responsibility. It is further stated that complainant is not entitled to any damages as there is no supporting proof that the complainant has suffered damages. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed being vexatious and malafide.
4. Vide order dated 23.02.2022, both the parties were given the last opportunity to file their evidences. The complainant failed to file his evidence despite several opportunities being granted, however, the OP filed their evidence by affidavit.
5. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for parties
6. Complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in service but evidence has not been led by complainant in support of his contentions. The onus of proof that there was deficiency in service was on the complainant. The burden of proof shifts to the OP only after the complainant discharges its initial onus. In the present matter, the complainant has failed to discharge the initial onus to prove his case.
7. It is to be noted that Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil appeal no. 5759/2009 SGS India Ltd. Vs. Dolphin international decided on 06.10.2021 has held that the initial burden of proof of deficiency in service was on complainant. The burden would not shift on OP.

It is also to be noted that Hon’ble State Commission also held in Indigo Airlines Vs. Kalpana Rani Debbarma and others (2020) 9 SCC 424 that the initial onus to substantiate the factum of deficiency in service committed by the opposite party was primarily on the compliant. Further heed:-

“28. In our opinion, the approach of the Consumer For a is in complete disregard of the principles of pleadings and burden of proof. First, the material facts constituting deficiency in service are blissfully absent in the complaint as filed. Second, the initial onus to substantiate the factum of deficiency in service committed by the ground staff of the Airlines at the airport after issuing boarding passes was primarily on the respondent. That has not been discharged by them. The Consumer For a, however, went on to unjustly shift the onus on the appellants because of their failure to producedany evidence. in law, the burden of proof would shift on the appellants only after the respondents/complainants had discharged their initial burden in establishing the factum of deficiency in service.”

For the foregoing reasons we are of the view that as complainant failed to prove that there was deficiency of service on part of OP. the complaint stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

The copy of order be uploaded on the website of the Commission.

File be consigned to record room along with a copy of the order.

 

 

 

POONAM CHAUDHRY

                                                                                                     President

 

                                          BARIQ AHMAD                                               ADARSH NAIN

                             MEMBER                                                        MEMBER