DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C. No. 254 of 3.9.2007<br /> Decided on : 18.01.2008<br /> <br /> Sadhu Ram Kusla, Assistant Project Officer, Office of Additional Deputy Commissioner (Development), Bathinda, R/o H. No. 138, Veer Colony, Maharaja Aggarsen Road, Bathinda.<br /> ...... Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus. <br /> <br /> 1. M/s. Yatra On Line Pvt. Ltd., B-21, Infocity, Sector-34, Gurgaon (Haryana) through its Manager.<br /> 2. ICICI Bank Ltd., Regd. Office, “Landmark”, Race Course Circle, Vadodra-390007 through its Chief Executive Officer.<br /> 3. The Manager, ICICI Bank Limited, ICICI Bank Credit Card Operations, P.O. Box 7931, Tulsiwadi P.O., Mumbai-400034.<br /> 4. Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, G.T. Road, Bathinda.<br /> ...... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> QUORUM:-<br /> <br /> Sh.Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh.Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr.Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. N.K Jeet, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. Ashok Gupta, counsel for opposite party No.1 <br /> : Sh. Sanjay Goyal, counsel for opposite parties No.2 to 4<br /> <br /> O R D E R.<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. Instant one is a Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) which has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to pay him interest @ 18% P.A on the amount of Rs. 35,000/- from 30.6.2007 to 8.8.2007; Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service; Rs. 25,000/- for mental agony, harassment, humiliation and pain undergone by him, his son and his three friends at the hands of opposite party No.1 and refund the amount collected by opposite party No. 2 from him as late payment fee (Rs.546/-); service tax (Rs. 67.49); interest (Rs. 21.73) and service tax (Rs.2.69).<br /> 2. Succinctly put, the case of the complainant is that Vipin Kusla is his son and is studying at Singapore since 2004. Opposite party No. 1 is running a travel agency and is engaged in on-line booking of Air Tickets. It is regularly advertising its services on T.V and Internet. After seeing one of the advertisements flashed by it, he booked four Air Tickets for 2.7.2007 from New Delhi to Singapore on an Air India Flight. They were booked in the name of his son Vipan Kusla and his three friends namely Mr. Davinder Kumar, Mr. Karanveer and Mr. Gaurav Puri. Opposite party No. 1 had confirmed the booking of these Air Tickets vide its e-mail sent from Arun Grover arun.grover@yatraonline.com to johnykusla@mail.com on 30.6.2007 at 4.05 P.M. Air Tickets were booked @ Rs. 13,500/- per ticket which included besides air fare and commission of opposite party No. 1 as well. As directed by opposite party No.1, a sum of Rs. 35,000/- was paid to it through Credit Card No. 4477473811320006 issued in his name by opposite party No.2. Remaining amount of Rs. 19,000/- was to be paid at the time of collecting Air Tickets from opposite party No. 1 on 1.7.2007 at Gurgaon. These tickets were booked for the Air India Flight from New Delhi to Singapore which was to leave at 7.25 A.M. On 1.7.2007, when complainant alongwith four boys in whose names tickets were booked reached the office of opposite party No.1 to collect the tickets, it told them that air tickets were not available @ Rs. 13,500/- on which they were earlier confirmed as booked and that complainant would have to pay Rs.18,000/- per ticket instead. It was not possible for him to arrange additional fare immediately. He asked opposite party No. 1 to cancel the booking and refund the amount of Rs. 35,000/-. Initially opposite party No.1 refused but when he persisted, it promised to refund it after a few days. It was absolutely necessary for his son and his three friends to visit Singapore, otherwise they would have been put to a great loss. Ultimately, complainant borrowed the money from an acquaintance at New Delhi and contacted another travel agent. He was extremely surprised to get the air tickets booked on the same air line and on the same flight at the same rate of Rs. 13,500/- per ticket. It is alleged that opposite party No. 1 knowingly and deliberately gave wrong information to him with malafide intention of extracting Rs. 4,500/- more per ticket (and thereby duping him of a total sum of Rs. 18,000). In this manner, opposite party No. 1 is deficient in rendering service. After waiting for three weeks, he (complainant) contacted opposite party No. 1 on 24.7.2007 on phone. He was told that due amount of Rs. 35,000/- has been credited to his Credit Card Account with ICICI Bank on 17.7.2007. When opposite party No. 4 was contacted, officials denied having received any amount from opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 was again contacted which informed that it would take 10 days more to process the amount. Opposite party No. 1 refused to give the address of its Grievance Cell or Officer Incharge. Allegation is that opposite party No. 1 informed him about charging Rs. 18,000/- per ticket instead of Rs. 13,500/- only on 1.7.2007 when he and the four boys had reached its office at Gurgaon to collect the Air Tickets. He did not give any intimation in advance. Opposite party No. 1 took considerably long time in refunding due amount of Rs. 35,000/- to him for the cancelled Air Tickets. Complainant alleges that opposite parties No. 2 to 4 are deficient in service as they credited the amount of Rs. 35,000/- on 8.8.2007 in his Credit Card account while amount was received by them about more than a fortnight ago. They also illegally charged Rs. 546/- as late payment fee, Rs. 67.49 as service tax, Rs. 21.73 as interest charges and Rs. 2.69 as service tax which amounts were not due to be deducted.<br /> 3. On being put to notice, opposite party No. 1 filed reply of the complaint taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complainant has got no locus-standi and cause of action to file the complaint as ticket were booked in the names of Vipin Kusla, Davinder Kumar, Karanveer and Gaurav Puri; complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by his act and conduct as tickets were booked as per terms and conditions of the agreement which are available on the on-line/Website; this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; intricate questions of law and facts are involved which require voluminous evidence and as such, case cannot be decided in summary way by this Forum and the controversy can only be adjudicated by the civil court; complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties i.e. Opposite parties No. 2 to 4; complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands; this Forum has got no jurisdiction as dispute in hand has arisen out of agreement and complaint is false and frivolous. On merits, it admits that it is running travel agency and is engaged in on-line booking of air tickets and advertising its services on T.V and Internet. Four air tickets were got booked in the names of aforesaid boys and were confirmed vide e-mail. Amount of Rs. 35,000/- was paid and remaining amount was to be paid at the time of collection of the tickets. Due to increase in the fare of Air Lines, it was made clear to the complainant that he has to pay Rs. 18,000/- per ticket or in the alternative he was at liberty to get the deposited amount refunded. He, without any protest, opted for refund of the amount which has already been refunded. It might be possible that keeping in view the high business from such travel agent, an extra advantage/benefit was provided by the Air Lines to such an agent which facilitated such agent to book the air tickets @ Rs. 13,500/- per ticket. It denies that wrong information was given to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on its part. Complainant has availed its services subsequently by booking an Air Ticket in the name of Vipin Kusla on 25.8.2007 by paying Rs. 15,312/- for the same route i.e. from Delhi to Singapore. Had there been any lapse on its part at the time of first deal, complainant, his son or any of his friend would not have availed its services. Remaining averments in the complaint are not admitted.<br /> 4. Opposite parties No. 2 to 4 filed their version taking legal objections that this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction as Air Tickets were booked at Gurgaon and the payment was also made from Gurgaon and the refund was also credited by opposite party No. 1 at Gurgaon; there is no cause of action against them; complainant has got no locus-standi to file the complaint; complaint has been filed on false facts and only remedy available to the complainant is to file civil suit as complaint requires elaborate oral and documentary evidence. Amount was credited on the date when it was received from opposite party No. 1. No extra amount has been charged. All the charges and taxes were charged as per rules, bye-laws and conditions. <br /> 5. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Sadhu Ram Kusla complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit (Ex.C.1), photocopy of e-mail dated 30.6.2007 (Ex.C.2), photocopy of Credit Card (Ex.C.3), photocopy of Credit Card Statement (Ex.C.4), photocopy of Air Ticket (Ex.C.5), photocopy of Passenger Air Ticket (Ex.C.6), photocopy of letter dated 24.7.2007 (Ex.C.7) and photocopy of Fare Code modified fare/special service requirement (Ex.C.8).<br /> 6. On behalf of opposite parties, reliance has been placed on affidavits (Ex.R.1 & Ex.R.3) of S/Sh. Veer Bhadar of opposite party No.4 and Dhruv Shringi, Director of opposite party No. 1 respectively, photocopy of Special Power of Attorney (Ex.R.2), photocopy of acceptance of terms (Ex.R.4) and photocopy of Quotation (Ex.R.5).<br /> 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Apart from this, we have gone through the record.<br /> 8. Some facts do not remain in dispute in this case. They are that four tickets were booked for S/Sh. Vipin Kusla, Davinder Kumar, Karanveer and Gaurav Puri for 2.7.2007 from New Delhi to Singapore on an Air India Flight @ Rs. 13,500/- per ticket. Opposite party No. 1 is running travel agency and is engaged in on-line booking and advertising its services on T.V and Internet. A sum of Rs.35,000/- was paid to opposite party No. 1 through Credit Card. Balance payment of Rs. 19,000/- was to be made on 1.7.2007 at Gurgaon at the time of collecting the tickets. Booking was confirmed through e-mail by opposite party No. 1 on 30.6.2007. On 1.7.2007, complainant and four boys in whose names tickets were booked were informed by opposite party No. 1 that the fare had increased to Rs. 18,000/- per ticket. This fact stands admitted by opposite party No. 1 in para No. 3 on merits in the reply of the complaint as well as in para No. 8 of the legal objections. Copy of the e-mail sent on 30.6.2007 according to which tickets were confirmed is Ex.C.2.<br /> 9. Arguments pressed into service by Mr. N.K. Jeet, learned counsel for the complainant are that opposite party No. 1 is deficient in rendering services as it informed the complainant about charging of Rs. 18,000/- per ticket instead of Rs. 13,500/- only on 1.7.2007 when he and four boys had reached Gurgaon to collect Air Tickets and no prior information in advance was given. Moreover, opposite party No. 1 took considerable long time in refunding due amount of Rs. 35,000/- to the complainant for the cancelled Air Tickets. Opposite parties No. 2 to 4 are deficient in service as they illegally credited the amount of Rs. 35,000/- on 8.8.2007 although it was received by them about more than a fortnight ago and that they also illegally charged Rs. 546/- as late payment fee, Rs. 67.49 as service tax, Rs. 21.73 as interest and Rs. 2.69 as service tax which amounts were not due.<br /> 10. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 argued that complainant has got no locus-standi and cause of action to file this complaint as tickets were booked for Vipin Kusla, Davinder Kumar, Karanveer and Gaurav Puri. Air fare from New Delhi to Singapore had increased from Rs. 13,500/- per ticket to Rs. 18,000/- per ticket. Accordingly, complainant and four boys were informed. Moreover, it may be possible that in view of the high business of another travel agent, an extra advantage/benefit was provided to him by the Air Line and on that account, he might have booked the Air Tickets @ Rs. 13,500/- per ticket. He further submitted that intricate and contentious questions are involved in this case and as such, matter can only be decided by the Civil Court. Reliance is placed by opposite party No. 1 on the acceptance of terms, copy of which is Ex.R.4.<br /> 11. Mr. Goyal, learned counsel for opposite parties No. 2 to 4 argued that amount of Rs. 35,000/- was received by opposite parties No. 2 to 4 on-line from opposite party No. 1 on 8.8.2007 and was credited in the Credit Card Account of the complainant on the same day as is clear from Ex.C.4. So far as late payment fee, service tax and interest charges are concerned, they have been rightly claimed by opposite parties No. 2 to 4 as complainant could not deposit the amount sent to opposite party No. 1 well in time. In support of it, he drew our attention to the affidavit Ex.R.1 of Sh. Veer Bhadar. <br /> 12. We have considered the respective arguments. Parties have concluded their evidence. Opposite parties could not bring to our notice that further elaborate oral and documentary evidence is required which could not be led by them. Moreover, matter has been set at rest by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of of CCI Chambers Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd.-III(2003)CPJ-9(SC) by holding that the principal object sought to be achieved by establishing Consumer Foras is to relieve the conventional courts of their burden which is ever-increasing with the mounting arrears and whereat the disposal is delayed because of the complicated and detailed procedure which at times is accompanied by technicalities. Merely because recording of evidence is required or some questions of law and facts arise which need to be investigated and determined, cannot be a ground for shutting the door of any Forum under the Act to the person aggrieved. Similar view has been held by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of J.J. Merchants Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi-III(2002)CPJ-8 (S.C.) . Accordingly, contention of the opposite parties that matter should be decided by the Civil Court is repelled.<br /> 13. On 1.7.2007, complainant was told by opposite party No. 1 to pay Rs.18,000/- per ticket on the ground that there was increase in the fare. Complainant did not agree to pay the amount at this rate. Stance of the complainant that he got booked four tickets for his son and three others and a sum of Rs. 35,000/- was paid to opposite party No. 1 through Credit Card No. 4477473811320006 issued in his name by opposite party No. 2 is fortified from Ex.C.1. Ex.C.3 is the copy of his Credit Card. In reply to para No. 2 of the complaint on merits, opposite party No. 1 admits that four tickets were booked in the names of Vipin Kusla and three others. Through para No. 3 of the reply of the complaint, opposite party No. 1 has pleaded that it was made clear to the complainant that due to increase in the fare, he has to pay Rs. 18,000/- per ticket. It means that transaction for getting the tickets booked and regarding subsequent events were with the complainant and not with Vipin Kusla, Davinder Kumar, Karanveer and Gaurav Puri. When the tickets were booked by the complainant, payment of Rs. 35,000/- was made to opposite party No. 1 through his Credit Card, he was told on 1.7.2007 to pay fare @ Rs. 18,000/- per ticket and Rs. 35,000/- have been refunded to him in his Credit Card Account by opposite party No.1, it does not lie in the mouth of opposite party No. 1 that he has no locus-standi and cause of action to file the complaint. Facts and circumstances clearly show that complainant is consumer.<br /> 14. Material question for determination is as to whether Air India had increased the fare from New Delhi to Singapore from Rs.13,500/- to Rs. 18,000/- for the flight for 2.7.2007. The onus to prove this is upon opposite party No. 1 as it has taken this plea in the reply of the complaint. No record of Air India regarding alleged increase in the fare has been placed and proved on record. No affidavit of the official of Air India has been brought on record to prove this version. Plea of opposite party No. 1 that an extra advantage/benefit might have been provided by the Air Lines to some agent who booked Air Ticket @ Rs. 13,500/- per ticket. This stance of opposite party No. 1 has not gone beyond the stage of allegation. It is not known who was agent to whom an extra advantage/benefit was provided by the Air Line. Evidence to support this plea is lacking. To the contrary, complainant has brought evidence which establishes that tickets for the same Air Line, the same flight and for the same date were got booked for Vipin Kusla and three others from some other agent than opposite party No. 1 as is evident from Ex.C.8. Photocopy of the Air Ticket of Vipin Kusla who availed flight on 2.7.2007 from Delhi to Singapore is Ex.C.5. Ex.C.6 is the photocopy of passenger air ticket of Mr. Vipin Kusla. A perusal of the same reveals that the fare for the Air India Ticket availed by him on 2.7.2007 was Rs. 13,576/- and not Rs. 18,000/- as demanded by opposite party No. 1 on 1.7.2007 when it was contacted by the complainant and others. Accordingly, we hold that the fare of Air India Flight from New Delhi to Singapore on 2.7.2007 was not Rs. 18,000/- as demanded by opposite party No.1. It appears to us that opposite party No. 1 has tried to dupe the complainant, particularly when it did not give any prior intimation that he would have to pay Rs.18,000/- per ticket. Affidavit Ex.R.3 of Sh. Dhruv Shringi, Director of opposite party No. 1 does not in any way advance its cause. Similarly, fact that subsequently Sh. Vipin Kusla availed the service of opposite party No. 1 for booking the Air Ticket would not take away its liability for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in the transaction with the complainant regarding the booking of tickets for 2.7.2007. Accordingly, we conclude that the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No. 1 is established. <br /> 15. Admittedly, complainant did not pay the amount to opposite party No. 1 as demanded by it @ Rs. 18,000/- per ticket on 1.7.2007. Plea of opposite party no. 1 is that refund of the amount deposited was sought and it has already been given. Version of the complainant is that opposite party No. 1 had promised to refund the amount after a few days and that after waiting for three weeks, he had contacted it on 24.7.2007 on phone. He was informed that due amount of Rs. 35,000/- was credited to his Credit Card Account with ICICI Bank on 17.7.2007. When opposite party no. 4 was contacted, it came to light that the amount was not received. Again opposite party no. 1 was contacted and he was informed that crediting of the amount in the Credit Card Account would take 10 days more. As is clear from Ex. C.4, amount of Rs. 35,000/- has been credited in the Credit Card Account of the complainant on 8.8.2007. There is no evidence to establish that the amount was received by opposite party-bank i.e. ICICI Bank prior to 8.8.2007 from opposite party No. 1. In these circumstances, no other conclusion can be arrived at than the one that amount was received from opposite party No. 1 by opposite party-bank on 8.8.2007 and the same was credited in the Credit Card Account of the complainant on the same day. Deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 1 is further established from the fact that it took considerably long time in refunding due amount of Rs. 35,000/- to the complainant for the cancelled Air Tickets. As mentioned above, complainant has not established that amount of Rs. 35,000/-was received by opposite parties No. 2 to 4 prior to 8.8.2007. Amount of Rs. 35,000/- stands credited in his Credit Card Account on 8.8.2007. It being so, complainant becomes liable for paying late payment fee, service tax and interest charges as claimed by opposite parties No. 2 to 4 in Ex.C.4. In these circumstances, no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties No. 2 to 4 is proved.<br /> 16. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant from opposite party No. 1. Complainant claims interest @ 18% P.A on the amount of Rs. 35,000/- from 30.6.2007 to 8.8.2007. He is claiming compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for deficiency in service and another Rs. 25,000/- for mental tension, harassment and humiliation. After considering all the pros and cones of the case, we are of the view that towards compensation and interest, lumpsum amount be allowed, which we assess as Rs. 10,000/-. Accordingly, direction deserves to be given to opposite party No. 1. <br /> 17. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 18. In the premises written above, complaint is partly allowed against opposite party No. 1 with cost of Rs. 1,000/-. It stands dismissed qua opposite parties No. 2 to 4. Opposite party No. 1 is directed to do as under :-<br /> ( i ) Pay Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant<br /> ( ii ) Compliance within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the amount of Rs. 10,000/- would carry interest @ 9% P.A till payment.<br /> 19. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 18.01.2008 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet) (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member Member<br /> 'bsg'