Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/96

Colonel D.S. Kashyap - Complainant(s)

Versus

Riya Travel - Opp.Party(s)

Rajinder Singh Machaki

30 Aug 2016

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :       96

Date of Institution:  12.04.2016

Date of Decision :    30.08.2016

Colonel D S Kashyap, Q (Land), s/o Sh S N Dhal posted in 4 Medium Regiment (SP) c/o 56 APO, Faridkot Cantt now Head Quarter Northern Command, c/o 56 APO, Pin Code-908595.

...Complainant

Versus

1. Riya Travel and Tours through its Managing Director having its registered Office at Level 4, Block B (Magnolia), Manyata Embassy Business Park, Bangalore-560045, India.

2. M/s Flight Raja Travels Private Ltd (a company registered under The Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at Magnolia Block-B Level 4, Manyata Embassy, Business Park, Outer Ring Road, Nagawara, Bangalore-560045.

                                  ....Opposite parties

   Complaint under Section 12 of the

   Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

    

   Quorum:     Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,

   Sh P Singla, Member.

    

   Present:      Sh Rajinder Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                     Sh M L Chug, Ld Counsel for OP-2,

                       OP-1 Exparte.

    (Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                 Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to OPs to pay the excessive charges of Rs.888/-of travelling ticket alongwith Rs.2000/-as Counsel fee etc and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/- to complainant.

   2                                     Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on 27.09.2015, complainant booked a ticket for travelling from Jammu to Srinagar through online system and in this regard, Ops also issued itinerary receipt for total travelling charges of Rs.5,609/-to him, but thereafter, OPs intentionally and illegally charged Rs.6,692/-thereby charged Rs.1,083/- in excess from complainant, which is illegality and amounts to deficiency in service. On return from his journey, complainant approached OPs and asked them for refund of excessive amount charged by them, but they did not refund his excess amount of Rs1,083/- to him. Thereafter, complainant issued legal notice dt 5.11.2015 to OPs, to which they gave reply, wherein admitted that they charged Rs.888/-extra from complainant, but they did not return the same. After that, complainant issued rejoinder dt 19.11.2015 to OPs requesting them to refund the excessive amount charged by them alongwith Rs.2,000/- as fee of counsel and typing and despatch  charges, but they did not consider his request and have deliberately harassed the complainant. This act of Ops amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of Ops and has caused great harassment and mental agony to complainant for which he has prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- besides alongwith litigation expenses besides main relief. Hence, the complaint.

   3                                          The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 21.04.2016, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to OPs.

4                                              Notice containing copy of complainant and relevant documents was issued to OP-1 through registered post on 22.04.2016, but same is not received back undelivered. It is presumed that acknowledgment might have been lost in transit. No body appeared in the Forum either in person or through Counsel on behalf of OP-1 on date fixed and then, after expiry of statutory period, OP-1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 1.06.2016.

5                                       On receipt of notice, OP-2 filed reply taking preliminary objections that all the submissions and allegations made by complainant are incorrect, misleading and wrong and there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and complaint is malafide and devoid of established principles of law and equity and is not maintainable in this Forum. It is averred that complaint involves complicated questions of law and facts requiring lengthy procedure of examination and cross-examination and therefore, it is required to be filed in Civil Court. However, on merits, OPs have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. It is averred that complainant booked flight ticket through OPs’ web portal “Via.com”and ticket was of Rs.5,609/-, but complainant was charged Rs.6,692/-. It is further averred that Rs.195/-was charged as convenience fee for making payment through Credit Card and thus, Rs.888/-were charged extra from complainant. There is neither any malafide intention nor deliberate act on the part of OPs. In reply to notice issued by complainant, he was offered to take extra amount of Rs.888/-wrongly deducted by them, but through rejoinder complainant asked them to pay fee of counsel alongwith despatch and typing charges besides extra amount deducted by them. It is further stated that before decision on his rejoinder could be taken, complainant filed the present complaint. It is further submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with special costs.

6                                                         Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-9 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                                  In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, ld counsel for OP-2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Shilpa Maria as Ex OP-2/1 and document Ex OP-2/2 and then, closed the same on behalf of OP-2.

 8                                          We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the complainant as well OPs and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents placed on the file.

9                                     The Ld Counsel for complainant argued that on 27.09.2015, complainant booked a ticket through OPs for travelling from Jammu to Srinagar through online system and in this regard, Ops also issued itinerary receipt for total travelling charges of Rs5,609/-to him, but thereafter, OPs illegally charged Rs.6,692/-thereby charged Rs.1,083/- in excess from complainant, which is altogether wrong and amounts to deficiency in service. On return from his journey, complainant approached OPs and asked them to refund the excessive amount charged by them, but they did not do so. Thereafter, complainant issued legal notice dt 5.11.2015 to OPs, to which they sent reply, wherein admitted that they charged Rs.888/-extra from complainant, but they did not return the same. After that, complainant issued rejoinder dt 19.11.2015 to OPs  with request to refund the excessive amount charged by them alongwith Rs.2,000/- as fee of counsel and typing and despatch  charges, but they did not consider his request and have deliberately harassed the complainant, which has caused harassment and mental agony to complainant. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses. He has stressed on documents Ex C-1 to 9.

10                                  In reply to the arguments of complainant, counsel for OPs submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The present complaint is filed on false grounds and misleading facts. It is averred that complainant booked flight ticket through OPs’ web portal “Via.com” and ticket was of Rs.5609/-, but complainant was charged Rs.6,692/-. It is further averred that Rs.195/-was charged as convenience fee for making payment through Credit Card and thus, Rs.888/-were charged extra from complainant. It is totally denied that Rs.1,083/- were charges as extra amount. There is neither any malafide intention nor deliberate act on the part of OPs as in reply to legal notice issued by complainant, he was offered to take extra amount of Rs.888/-wrongly deducted by them, but through rejoinder complainant asked them to pay fee of counsel alongwith despatch and typing charges besides extra amount deducted by them. It is further stated that before decision on his rejoinder could be taken, complainant filed the present complaint. It is further submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. Prayer for dismissal of present complaint is made.

11                                        It is admitted case of both the parties that complainant got booked air travel tickets through OPs for travelling from Jammu to Sri Nagar. Main contention of complainant is that the ticket for travelling from Jammu to Sri nagar was of Rs.5,609/-but Ops deducted Rs.6,692/-from complainant and thus, charged Rs.1083/-extra from him without any reason. Complainant asked them for refund of extra amount, but they did not do so. Complainant also issued legal notice and then another letter to OPs, but all in vain. In reply, OPs admit that some extra charges are wrongly deducted by them and they are ready to refund the same. OPs  assert that Rs.888/-were charged extra and it is denied that Rs.1083/-were charged as extra amount.

12                                  In the light of above discussion, it is observed that Rs.195/- were charged as convenience fee for making payment through credit card and only Rs 888/- were charged extra. The OPs themselves admitted that they charged Rs.888/-extra from complainant and complainant issued them notice for refund of this amount. Even after the notice or after filing of this complaint, OPs did not refund this amount to complainant which was wrongly charged by them from complainant. This amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. Hence, present complaint is  hereby allowed. OPs are directed to refund Rs.888/-the extra amount charged by them from complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per anum from the date of payment till final realization. OPs are further directed to make payment of Rs.5000/-as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs.2000/-as litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed to under Section 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

 Announced in open Forum:

  Dated: 30.08.2015                            

Member                            President                                     (P Singla)                            (Ajit Aggarwal)