DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 380
Instituted on: 09.07.2014
Decided on: 08.02.2017
Bhim Sain S/o Shri Meeri Mal C/O AP Solvex, Mann-Wala Road, Dhuri, Tehsil Dhuri and Distt. Sangrur.
..Complainant
Versus
1. Shivam Travelling Point through its Proprietor/Partner/Manager, 35/14-A, Shivpuri, Dhuri, Tehsil Dhuri and Distt. Sangrur;
2. Arzoo.com (India) Private Ltd. through its M.D./Manager/Authorised Signatory, 5th Floor, Samruddhi Venture Park, MIDC Central Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400 093.
3. Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. through its MD/Manager, 12th Floor, UB Tower, UB City, No.24, Vittal Mallaya Road, Bangalore 560 001 Karnataka (India).
…Opposite parties
For the complainant : Shri Nem Kumar, Advocate.
For OP No.1&3 : Exparte.
For OP No.2 : Shri B.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Shri Bhim Sain, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that OP number 2 is the proprietor of website, namely www.arzoo.com for providing travelling related services and OP number 1 manages websites www.flyatshivam.com and biz.flyatshivam.com under arrangement with OP number 2. The case of the complainant is that during the first week of August, 2012 the complainant approached OP number 1 for availing travelling services, as such, the complainant got booked six air tickets for air journey from Chandigarh to Chennai for 25.12.2012 for self, his relatives and friends by paying the requisite amount of Rs.27,750/- in cash to OP number 1 at Dhuri. The said booking was confirmed vide PNR..MAQQSQ and on 12.8.2012 the complainant had been confirmed e-tickets bearing number 0902452077921 to 926 for flight number 183 of Kingfisher Red Airline for departure from Chandigarh as on 25.12.2012 at 15:35 hrs. and for arrival at Chennai on 25.12.2012 at 20.30 hrs. It has been further averred in the complaint that OP number 1 also stated that the complainant may got cancelled the said booking at any time even two hours prior to the time of departure of flight. Thus, the complainant requested for cancellation of the said tickets on 25.10.2012 through OP number 1, who stated the confirmation of lodging of cancellation request and assured for refund of the amount of Rs.27,750/-. The grievance of the complainant is that the Ops did not refund the amount of Rs.27,750/- despite repeated visits and even serving of legal notice. As such, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.27,750/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from 12.8.2012 and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.
2. Record shows that the Op number 1 did not appear despite service, as such OP number 1 was proceeded exparte on 26.09.2014.
3. In reply filed by OP number 2, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form and as such the complaint is liable t be dismissed, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complainant is not a consumer of the OP. On merits, it has been stated that the Op has no liability to refund any amount as alleged by the complainant. The liability , if any, is of the company being the owner of the Kingfisher Airlines Limited. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.
4. During the present proceedings, the complainant also arrayed Kingfisher Airlines Limited as OP number 3, to whom notice was issued on 18.10.2016 for appearance, but the RC sent to the Op number 3 not received back, as such, OP number 3 was proceeded exparte on 21.11.2016.
5. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-4 postal receipts, Ex.C-5 e ticket, Ex.C-6 cancellation request, Ex.C-7 and Ex.C-8 affidavits and Ex.C-9 bank statement and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 affidavit, Ex.OP2/2 copy of ledger, Ex.Op2/3 copy of payment voucher, Ex.OP2/4 copy of certificate of Accreditation, Ex.OP2/5 copy of cutting of newspaper and closed evidence.
6. We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.
7. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that through OP number 1 he got booked three air tickets for air journey from Chandigarh to Chennai for 25.12.2012 by spending an amount of Rs.27,750/- and the journey was to be performed through flight number 183 of Kingfisher Red Airline. But, the complainant applied for cancellation of the said tickets on 25.10.2012 through OP number 1 and confirmation for refund of Rs.27,750/- was made and further told that the same will be received within a few days. But, the grievance of the complainant is that the refund of Rs.27,750/- was not issued by Ops despite repeated visits of the complainant to the Ops.
8. Further, it is an admitted fact from the copy of e-ticket Ex.C-5 that the complainant purchased three tickets in question through Ops number 1 and 2 for journey from Chandigarh to Chennai through the Kingfisher Airlines and the amount of Rs.27,750/- was sent to the air lines for purchase of the air tickets. The learned counsel for the OP number 2 has contended vehemently that the complainant has intentionally not arrayed the Kingfisher Red Airlines as a party, which was later on arrayed as OP number, who did not appear despite service, as such OP number 3 and was proceeded exparte due to non appearance despite service. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has contended vehemently that the amount so deposited was to be refunded by the OP number 3 i.e. Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. who had received the amount and not by Ops number 1 and 2. But, in the present case record shows that the OP number 3 did not appear despite service and chose to remain exparte. As such, we are of the considered opinion that the amount remained with OP number 3 and further that it is a fit case, where the OP number 3 deserves to be directed to refund the amount of Rs.27,750/- so deposited with the OP number 3 through OPs number 1 and 2.
9. It is worth mentioning here that this complaint was filed on 09.07.2014, but during the proceedings of the complaint case, the OP number 1 filed an appeal against the order dated 26.09.2014 of this Forum whereby OP number 1 was proceeded exparte and further the Hon’ble State Commission summoned the case file and the appeal number 1429 of 2014 was decided only on 24.02.2015 whereby the application of OP number 1 for setting aside the order dated 26.09.2014 of this Forum was dismissed and the case file was only received on 03.05.2016 and thereafter the proceedings were taken in the complaint case. As such, the complaint case was not decided in the stipulated period according to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
10. In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OP number 3 to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.27,750/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of request for cancellation i.e. 25.12.2012 till realisation. We further direct OP number 3 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of compensation and litigation expenses. This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
February 8, 2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
