Delhi

New Delhi

CC/759/2011

Shamsher Singh Nathyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

25 Apr 2019

ORDER

 

   CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC.759/2011                                                                    Dated:

In the matter of:

Shamsher Singh Nathyal

19/13, West Patel Nagar,

New Delhi-110008.                                         ……..COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

 

1. Make My Trip India Pvt. Ltd.

       2^nd Floor, Plaza Cinema Building

H-block, Connaught Place

New Delhi-110001

2. Spice Jet Ltd.

Near Steel Gate Bus Stop

                    Terminal-1

Indira Gandhi International Airport

New Delhi-110037                                                                             ……………OPPOSITE PARTY

 

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA-PRESIDENT

ORDER

      The gist of the complaint is that the complainant alleged to have booked two tickets for Jammu owning to demise of his brother in law in the intervening night of 1^st and 2^nd December 2010. It is alleged that he alongwith his wife decided to go to Jammu by next available flight to attend the cremation. On 02/12/2010 at the website of OP-1, the complainant found tickets in Spice Jet flight no. SG-851 departing at 8:50 am available. He opted to book two tickets in economy class and gave complete details of his credit card for payment of fare. Strangely, different fare was charged for said 2 tickets. The complainant paid an amount of Rs. 13,992/- and confirmation of payment was received through SMS in this regard. After about half an hour later, the complainant received  a massage from the OP-1 that only one ticket in the name of the complainant got confirmed  and the second ticket in the name of his wife could not be confirmed. At about 6:30am on 02/12/2010, the younger brother of the complainant called the complainant’s daughter to book one ticket for him in the same flight for Jammu to attend cremation. The daughter of the complainant was not aware of the whole episode of unconfirmed ticket of complainant’s wife. The complainant’s daughter booked one ticket for younger brother of the complainant which was confirmed on payment of Rs.  10,296/-.

It is alleged that the OP-1 on one hand did not confirm the ticket of the complainant’s wife and just after an hour or so issued the confirmed ticket on the same flight booked by the daughter of the complainant.

 The complainant on return from Jammu sent e-mail dated 07/01/2011 to OP-1 and in response to the said e-mail. OP-1 called the complainant through one Sh. Vishal Kapoor who apologized for the said incident and assured that he would take up the matter to the higher officials but no further response was received.  Again the complainant sent e-mail dated 17/01/2011 to OP-1 about non-resolution of his complaint. It is alleged that such action on the part of OP amounts to deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice under the provision of Consumer Protection Act. Following prayer is made:-

“Most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- to the complainant alongwith the up to date interest.

Any other order in favour of the complainant that this Hon’ble Forum deems fit in the present facts and circumstances may also be passed.”

 The OPs were noticed. The OP-1 filed written statement/version and denied all the allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. It is, however, admitted that due to system error one air ticket could not be confirmed and was informed to the complainant accordingly. The refund of due amount was made to the complainant and therefore, there remains no cause of action against the OP-1. It is denied that the OP intentionally did not confirm the first booking due to non availability to seat.

 It is also stated that the availability of the seats as well as the fare of air ticket is not within the domain of OP-1 and It is under the domain of the OP-2 and as such the allegations regarding the charging different fare of each ticket is of no consequence as against the OP-1. Prayer to dismiss the complaint has been made while denied the prayer of compensation and litigation expenses.

The complainant has filed rejoinder and evidence by way of affidavit reiterating the averments made in the complaint. The OP filed evidence by way of affidavit.

OP-2 also filed written statement, stating that the OP-1 is independently operating and functioning travel booking web site recognized by IATA and no liability for deficiency and fault of OP-1 can be fastened on OP-2. The complainant has alleged the deficiency in service of OP-1 and not OP-2, therefore, the complaint as against the OP-2 is misconceived and deserves dismissal. The OP-2 also filed affidavit by way of evidence.

The complainant and the OP-1 filed written submissions. Complainant and OP-1 also addressed oral arguments. It is argued on behalf of complainant that the charging of different rates for each ticket against single stoke/request for booking by the OP is unfair trade practice and  further that not confirming a ticket and later confirming  one ticket to another person just after the gap of around one hour for higher cost is deficiency in service also. The complainant relied on circular no. Tariff/1/1AED/2010 dated ­­­­­­­­­­19/11/2010 issued by government of India, Office of the Director General of civil aviation in relation to publishing of tariff rule 135 of Air Craft Rule, 1937. In the said circular the directions to Domestic Air Lines have been  issued regarding the publishing of tariff and noticeable changes with DGCA.

Per contra, It is argued on behalf of OP-1 that due to system failure the other ticket of the complainant could not be confirmed and amount received against unconfirmed ticket was refunded. Therefore, there is neither any deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice. The complainant relied upon the judgement of Hon’ble National Commission dated 06/05/2002 titled as Express Travels Vs. M.R. Shah and Ors. reported as III(2002)CPJ39(NC), M/s Spice Jet Ltd. V/s Vir Bahadur & Ors. in F.A. no. 518/10 decided on 25/11/2013 by Hon’ble State Commission Delhi and F.A. no. 743/12   in the name of AA BEE Resort and Travel Pvt. Ltd. V/s Om Prakash Palia decided  on 16/01/2015 of Hon’ble State Commission Delhi.

We have considered the materials placed before us and submissions made by the parties. The grievance of the complainant is two pronged viz. charging of different rates for two tickets booked in single stroke on website of OP-1 and not issuing the confirmed ticket for his wife and secondly OP issued confirmed ticket in the name of some other person in the same flight at the higher fare.

The OP-1 admitted having issued one confirmed ticket and one unconfirmed ticket due to system error.

The OP-2 shirked the liability on the pretext that the entire deficiency in service is attributed to OP-1 which cannot be fasten to OP-2. The OP-2 has not contradicted the circular dated 19/11/2010.

In view of above position and facts of the case we are of the considered view that even if there was any system error as alleged by the OP-1, the single transaction in respect of two tickets booked by the complainant could not have been accomplished in the premise of facts that one ticket was confirmed and the other remained unconfirmed. Whereas the document filed by the complainant shows the reason for not confirming on ticket due to sudden fall of available seats. The said documents of complainant have not been denied by the OPs. We are not convinced with such arguments of the OP-1 that due to the system error remained unconfirmed though the transaction had completed and the entire amount of two ticket was received by the OP-1. It is inconceivable that only for confirmation of one ticket against two was on account of some system error.

So far as the argument of OP-2, it is not disputed that different fares for 2 tickets was charged. There is no explanation of such variance in the fare against two ticket booked by one person in one transaction on the website of OP-1. It is not disputed that the fare cost is under the domain of OP-2.

In view of above discussion, we are of the considered view and hold OP-1 and OP-2 are deficient in service and also adopted unfair trade practice. The judgement/citation relied by OP-1 are not applicable to the present case as the facts of the said judgement/citation of the present case are quite different.   

We, therefore, direct as under:-

1. OP-1 to pay a sum of Rs 15,000/- for mental agony, harassment within 30 days of receipt of this order failing which it shall be liable to pay simple interest of 9% p.a. till the date of realization and litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant.
2. OP-2 to pay a sum of Rs 15,000/- for mental agony, harassment within 30 days of receipt of this order failing which it shall be liable to pay simple interest of 9% p.a. till the date of realization and litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant.

A copy each of this order each be sent to the parties free of cost by post as per statutory requirement.

Orders be also sent to www.confonet.nic.in.

File be consigned to record room.

     Pronounced in open Forum on 25/04/2019 (

                                                               (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)     

                                                                          PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                                             (H M VYAS)

          MEMBER                                                                                       MEMBER