Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/742/2016

Bajrang Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

My Travel Box - Opp.Party(s)

In person

03 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/742/2016
Date  of  Institution	:	05/09/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	03/07/2017

 

 

 

 

 

Bajrang Lal, Resident of House No. 1246, Sector 7, Panchkula (Haryana).

….Complainant

Vs.

 

 

[1]  My Travel Box, SCO 60, Level 2, Madhya Marg, Sector 26, U.T. Chandigarh, through its Director.

 

[2]  The Manager, Jet Airways India Limited, New Civil Air Terminal Chandigarh, Village Jhiurheri, District Mohali (Punjab) - 140356.

 

…… Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:   MRS.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Complainant in person.
For OP No.1	:	Sh. B.S. Makar, Advocate.
For OP No.2	:	Ex-parte.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

          In brief, the Complainant had booked an air ticket from Opposite Party No.1 on 03.08.2016 for his son namely, Mr. Atul from Chandigarh to Mumbai and thereafter, from Mumbai to Coimbatore, by paying an amount of Rs.8,015/-. The journey of the son of the Complainant was to start from 10.08.2016, but due to some personal unavoidable reasons, the Complainant had to cancel the air ticket on 09.08.2016. The Opposite Party No.2 cancelled the air ticket, with an assurance that the credit note would be sent to Opposite Party No.1 for refunding the entire payment. As per the assurance of Opposite Party No.2, the Complainant went to the office of Opposite Party No.1 for taking the payment. However, the Opposite Party No.1 clearly refused to refund the entire payment to the Complainant and rather started lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs. 

  

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to the Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case. Since, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte.

 

3.     Opposite Party No.1 in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, has stated that the Complainant directly cancelled the ticket from Opposite Party No.2, therefore, no deficiency in service could be attributed on its part. It has been asserted that the answering Opposite Party did not receive any refund from the Opposite Party No.2 qua the tickets of the Complainant. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.     The Complainant also filed replication to the written statement filed by the Opposite Party No.1, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Party No.1 has been controverted.

 

5.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.     We have heard the Complainant in person and Sh. B.S. Makar, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 (Opposite Party No.2 being ex-parte) and also perused the record, with utmost care and circumspection.

 

7.     In the present case, the averments of the complaint have gone unrebutted in the absence of the Opposite Party No.2, who was duly served, and preferred neither to appear in person, nor through its Counsel. It is established beyond all reasonable doubt that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine. The Opposite Party No.2 have certainly and definitely indulged into unfair trade practice, as it was incumbent upon it (Opposite Party No.2) to promptly issue the credit note against the cancellation request of the Complainant, to facilitate further processing of the same at the end of Opposite Party No.1, which it did not, even after specific requests of the Complainant. Also, the Opposite Party No.2 did not bother to redress the grievance of the Complainant when contacted by him. Learned Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 has specifically argued that since the Complainant had directly cancelled the ticket in question from Opposite Party No.2, therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1, in as much as, it did not receive any refund from the Opposite Party No.2 qua the ticket of the Complainant. However, we are not impressed with this limb of argument, as Opposite Party No.1 had received the payment and booked the air ticket of Opposite Party No.2, so it is liable to refund the amount. Moreover, when the Opposite Party No.1 did not receive any refund from Opposite Party No.2 against the ticket of the Complainant, it was incumbent upon Opposite Party No.1 to escalate the matter to the Opposite Party No.2 to initiate the process, which it miserably failed to do, resulting into immense, mental and physical harassment to the complainant. Hence, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 cannot escape their liability and are liable to the refund received from the complainant. Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against them.

 

8.     In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are, jointly and severally, directed:-

[a]  To refund Rs.8,015/- being the cost of the air ticket to the Complainant;

 

[b]  To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony & harassment suffered by the complainant;

 

[c]  To pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

 

9.     The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2; thereafter, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 shall be liable for an interest @12% p.a. on the amounts mentioned in sub-paras [a] and [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c].  

 

10.     The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

03^rd July, 2017                                  Sd/-     

 (SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                                      Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER