Complaint No: 363 of 2019.
Date of Institution: 11.12.2019.
Date of order: 07.03.2024.
Taranjit Singh aged about 29 years Son of Sh. Joga Singh, resident of Village Nawan Pind, Post Office Kahnuwan Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, Punjab. Aadhaar Card No. 7877 4296 2906.
…........Complainant.
VERSUS
1. Paytm Flights, one 97 Communications Limited, B 121, Sector 5, Noida – 201301, through its Authorized Signatory / Manager.
2. Jet Airways (India) Limited, Siroya Centre, Sehar Airport Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400099, India.
….Opposite Parties.
Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.S.S. Litter, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party No.1: Sh.M.S. Ghuman, Advocate.
Opposite Party No.2: Given up.
Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.
ORDER
Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.
Taranjit Singh, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against Paytm Flights Etc. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that the OP No.1 is providing the services of E-Ticket bookings through on-lines and through their websites, apps etc. to the travelers throughout India, under the name and style of Paytm Flights, similarly, the OP No.2 is providing the services of Airways travelling under the name and style of Jet Airways, booked through the OP No.1. It is pleaded that the complainant for his friend namely Inderjit Singh booked the Airline E-Ticket through his personal E-mail ID i.e. “WE ARE SORRY IT HAS TAKEN US LONGER TO RESOLVE THIS THAN ANTICIPATE. WE ARE LOOKING AT THIS ISSUE ON PRIORITY AND RESOLVE WITHIN 5-7 DAYS FROM CONCERN RAISED” and till date they have failed to return the money to the complainant inspite of so many requests made by the complainant for this purpose and have also failed to pay and have also caused unnecessary physical and mental harassment to the complainant. Due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. So, there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to repay / return the amount of Rs.15,124/- alongwith Rs.11,888/- incurred on the booking of Air ticket of another airlines i.e. INDIGO Airlines due to the negligence act of the opposite parties alongwith interest @ 20% per month from the date of receiving the same till the date of actual payment and also be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation suffered due to unnecessary physical and mental harassment and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses and any other relief, for which this Ld. Commission deems sustainable may also be granted to the complainant and the complaint of the complainant may kindly be allowed, in the interest of justice and fair play.
3. Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the answering opposite party No.1 ("Paytm") herein is the owner of the website www.paytm.com along with the Mobile Application named "Paytm" which inter-alia provides online marketplace services through its Paytm Platform to facilitate listings / bookings by aggregators directly and/or through its Merchants (including but not limited to flight, hotel and car hire booking and price comparisons). The answering opposite party No. 1 acts only as a conduit between customer and service provider / aggregator. It is pleaded that the opposite party No.2 is a company engaged in the operation of airlines in the name and brand of Jet Airlines. The complainant had purchased flight tickets from the opposite party No. 2 through the online platform provided by the opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 2 was responsible for operation and maintenance of its airlines and was liable to refund its customers in case of cancellation of its flight. Unfortunately, the opposite party No. 2 has stopped operation of airlines and cancelled all its flights and has filed Insolvency application under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and has already been declared Insolvent by Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and has appointed Interim Insolvency Professional for Insolvency of the opposite party No. 2. Furthermore, the answering opposite party No. 1 submits that as per Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 as follows:-
Subject to provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), on the insolvency commencement date, the Adjudicating Authority shall by order declare moratorium for prohibiting all of the following, namely:-
- The institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority;
- Transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing off by the corporate debtor any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein;
- Any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the corporate debtor in respect of its property including any action under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002);
- The recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or in the possession of the corporate debtor.
The Moratorium, as envisaged in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code comes into effect immediately after the application under section 7, 9 or 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, as the case may be, is admitted by the adjudicating authority. Hence, it is respectfully submitted that this Consumer Commission does not have jurisdiction to entertain the present suit due to moratorium imposed under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016. It is further pleaded that online platform of the answering opposite party No. 1 is governed by Terms and Conditions which are acknowledged by a complainant before proceeding ahead for availing the services of the answering opposite party No. 1. Salient features pertaining to the same as under:-
- Paytm is not a travel or booking agent or a last mile service provider to you and, therefore, Paytm shall not be deemed to be liable for any fault in the content / booking / listing services provided by aggregator or the Merchant / Vendor. Paytm is also not responsible for setting or controlling the prices applicable to such searches and bookings through the Paytm Platform. All such listings / bookings are provided by the aggregator directly and/or through its Merchants / Vendors and are subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the concerned aggregator or the Merchant / Vendor.
It is further pleaded that the complainant alleges that his friend Mr. Inderjit Singh booked flight tickets of the opposite party No. 2 using the online platform of the answering opposite party No. 1 on 17th February, 2019 from Amritsar to Doha for dated 08th March, 2019 having PNR No. WNYUKH Vide booking id No. 7391251021. For the said tickets, the complainant paid Rs.15,124/-. Further, it came to the notice of the complainant that the flights of the OP No. 2 are being cancelled, so, immediately complainant contacted to the OP No. 2 and booked other ticket on 23th February, 2019 and received revised flight ticket dated 6th March, 2019. The complainant alleges that he received an E-mail from the opposite party No. 2 about the cancellation of the said flight. On 18th April, 2019, the opposite party No. 2 had shut down all of its operations; it cancelled all operations of its flights. The complainant allegedly logged onto the online platform of the answering opposite party No. 1 seeking status of refund to which the complainant received a response that the answering opposite party No. 1 is working on the complainant's query and shall communicate shortly. The complainant has alleged that till date he has not received any reply from the answering opposite party No. 1. It is further pleaded that upon perusal of the complaint of the complainant, it is imperative to bring to the kind knowledge of this Hon'ble Commission the process involved after the tickets are booked using the platform of the answering opposite party No. 1. That primarily, all international / domestic flight bookings are looked after by the International Air Transport Association (here-in-after to be referred as "IATA"), which is a trade association, whose primary task is to maintain global airline standards. A Passenger Sales Agency Agreement has been signed between the answering opposite party No. 1 and IATA which states that the opposite party No. 1 (Paytm) is an accredited passenger sales agent. Under IATA, a Billing and Settlement Plan (here-in-after to be referred as "BSP") Manual has been formulated for the agents as per which every transaction in relation to airline ticketing is to be transmitted to IATA using the BSP Portal. Hence, whenever a consumer books a flight ticket using the online platform of the answering opposite party No. 1, the payment made is transmitted via the BSP Portal to IATA which thereon processes the payment to the concerned Airlines. The same process is followed during cancellation when a situation of a refund arises. A refund request is placed before the concerned Airline which then processes the refund to IATA which thereon processes the refund, through the BSP Portal, to the answering opposite party No. 1. It is further pleaded that as submitted above in the present case, the airline tickets were cancelled by the opposite party No. 2 being on 08.03.2019 and later on from 18.04.2019. The opposite party No. 2 was non-operational and has been declared insolvent. That pursuant to order dated 20th June, 2019, by the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), a corporate insolvency resolution process for Jet Airways has been initiated and an Interim Resolution Professional has been appointed, the complaint filed for refunds with the answering opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 1 dutifully raised the refund request with IATA upon which the opposite party No. 1 received a letter from IATA stating that as per resolution process IATA has raised its claims as a creditor before the Interim Resolution Professional which has been listed in the list of Creditors issued by Interim Resolution Professional the same will be refunded when the Insolvency process shall be completed as per the process specified in Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016. Thus, the answering opposite party No. 1 has rightfully forwarded refund against said flight tickets and the liability in respect of refund against said flight tickets lays solely with the opposite party No. 2 i.e. Jet Airways. It is further pleaded that as per the laid down process, the payments made by the complainant for the purpose of booking the concerned flight tickets were promptly transferred to IATA which, as per procedure, transferred the same to the concerned airlines. Since, with the current ongoing bankruptcy proceedings against Jet Airways, that Jet Airways went on to cancel all its operations / flights, the refund also stays pending from Jet Airways i.e. the opposite party No. 2. The answering opposite party No. 1, acts as an intermediary, can only raise a refund request on behalf of the complainant, which it rightfully did, and await further intimation from Jet Airways and IATA. Hence, any delay that has occurred in the processing of refund to the complainant is because the dues of IATA from Jet Airways are yet to be cleared. Only once the concerned Interim Resolution Professional discharges the creditors with amounts due to them will IATA process the pending dues of the complainant to then who will thereon transfer the same to the complainant. It is further pleaded that in the absence of any documentary proof corroborating deficiency in the service and unfair trade practice by the opposite party No. 2, the fact that since there was no deficiency of service on the part of the answering opposite party No. 1 and in light of the above, it is evident that the claims of the complainant lie only against the opposite party No. 2, and the answering opposite party No. 1 has only been added as a Performa party to this present complaint.
On merits, the opposite party No.1 has reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Opposite party No.2 given up vide order dated 09.07.2021.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant has filed Self-Attested affidavit of Taranjit Singh, (Complainant) alongwith Self-Attested documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Sharadindu Mukherjee, (Authorized Representative of One 97 Communications Ltd. (Paytm), Noida) as Ex.OPW-1/A alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-1/1 to Ex.OP-1/17 alongwith reply.
7. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.
8. Written arguments filed by the complainant, but not filed by the opposite party No.1.
9. Counsel for the complainant has argued that opposite party No.1 is providing services of E-Ticket bookings and on 17.02.2019 complainant had booked ticket through opposite party No.1 for his friend from Amritsar to Doha by making payment of Rs.15,124/-. It is further argued that on enquiry complainant came to know that flight scheduled for 08.03.2019 has been cancelled by airline and it was told to the complainant that one flight is available for 06.03.2019 and accordingly complainant had again booked the ticket but unfortunately on 27.02.2019 the said flight was also cancelled and intimated to the complainant. It is further argued that thereafter under the compelled circumstances complainant had to book ticket from another airline by making payment of Rs.11,888/- but the opposite parties have not refunded the amount as such failure to pay the amount of Rs.15,124/- for cancelled flight and Rs.11,888/- for booking of INDIGO Airlines flight amounts to deficiency in service.
10. On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.1 has argued that opposite party No.2 is owner of website alongwith mobile application named Paytm which iner-alia provides online market place services through its paytm platform and is only a conduit between customers and services provider. It is further argued that complainant had purchased ticket from opposite party No.2 through online platform provided by opposite party No.1 and since flight was cancelled by opposite party No.2, as such opposite party No.2 is liable to refund the amount. It is further argued that opposite party No.2 has stopped operations and has filed insolvency application and Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal has appointed interim insolvency professional for insolvency of opposite party No.2. It is further argued that the delay which occurred in processing the refund to the complainant is because the dues from IATA from Jet Airways rather yet to be cleared. Only once the concerned Interim Resolution Professional discharges the creditors with amounts due to them, IATA will process the pending dues of the complainant, who will thereon transfer the same to the complainant, as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
11. Complaint against opposite party No.2 had already been dismissed as having been given up vide order dated 09.07.2021.
12. We have heard the Ld. counsels for the complainant and opposite party No.1 and gone through the record.
13. To prove his case complainant has placed on file his self attested affidavit, copy of ticket Ex.C1, copy of statement of account Ex.C2, copy of E-mail Ex.C3, copy of airline ticket Ex.C4, copy of E-mail Ex.C5 whereas opposite party No.1 has placed on file affidavit of Sharadindu Mukherjee Ex.OPW-1/A, copy of resolution/certificate Ex.OP-1/1, copy of order dated 20.06.2019 Ex.OP-1/2, copy of coupon redemption Ex.OP-1/3, copy of Passengers Sales Agency Agreement Ex.OP-1/4, copy of BSP Manual for Agents Ex.OP-1/5, copy of suspension of Jet Airways Ex.OP-1/6 and copy of refund application Ex.OP-1/7.
14. Perusal of file shows that payment of Rs.15,124/- was made to opposite party No.1 by the complainant for booking of the ticket and since admittedly the said flight was cancelled, as such it is liability of the opposite party No.1 to seek refund from the opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.1 cannot take shelter of order dated 210.06.2019 Ex.OP-1/2 passed by the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal Mumbai Bench to avoid the payment, as said order has been passed against opposite party No.2 who had been already given up in this case. We are of the view that complainant being consumer cannot be made to suffer any loss on account of proceedings pending and decided by the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal Mumbai Bench as it is the duty of the opposite party No.1 to refund the amount of the complainant and thereafter lodged claim regarding refund with the IATA.
15. We have also relied upon the order of Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh in Appeal No.84 of 2020 decided on 25.02.2022 in case titled as Paytm Vs. Kanisht Ganriwala wherein the Hon'ble State Commission has held that since the tickets were booked through paytm portal as such paytm is liable to pay the refund amount to the passengers. Accordingly, we are of the view that failure to pay refund the amount by opposite party No.1 amounts to deficiency in service.
16. Accordingly, by relying upon the facts, evidence and case law cited above we partly allow the present complaint and opposite party No.1 is directed to refund the amount of Rs.15,124/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9 % per annum form the date of filing of present complaint till realization. Opposite party No.1 is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- for mental tension and agony. Entire exercise shall be completed within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
17. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
18. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.
(Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President.
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
March 07, 2024 Member.
*YP*
