THE PRESIDENT

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

 

CASE No. CC- 161 of 2021

 

Sri Pritam Deb,

S/O- Sri Habul Deb,

West Joynagar, Dashamighat,

P.S. West Agartala, P.O. Agartala,

799001, District- West Tripura. ..................Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

1. Sales Manager,

Ease My Trip,

Easy Trip Planners Ltd.,

Building No.223, FIE Pratapganj,

Industrial Area, East Delhi,

P.O. Pratapganj,

P.S. Pratapganj Industrial Area(PIA),

District- East Delhi- 110092.

 

2. The Airport Manager,

Inter Globe Aviation Limited,

(broadly known and distinguished

as INDIGO), Maharaja Bir Bikram

Manikya Kishore Airport

(the then Agartala Airport),

Agartala Domestic Airport,

Civil Airport, P.O. Agartala Airport,

P.S. Agartala Airport,

District- West Tripura- 799009. …...............Opposite Parties.

 

 

 

         __________PRESENT__________

 

 

 SRI RUHIDAS PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

Dr (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA,

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Mridul Kanti Arya,

  Sri Saikat Saha,

  Learned Advocates.

  

For the O.P.  No.1 : Sri Dipankar Das,

  Sri Ranjan Bhattacharya,

  Learned Advocates.

 

For the O.P. No.2 : Sri Kushal Deb,

  Learned Advocate.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON :  19.01.2023.

 

 

J U D G M E N T

 

Sri Pritam Deb (here-in-after referred to as ‘Complainant’) set the law in motion by presenting a complaint petition U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 complaining against the Sales Manager, Ease My Trip, Easy Trip Planners Ltd., East Delhi (here-in-after referred to as ‘O.P.1’) and the Airport Manager, Inter Globe Aviation Ltd., Agartala Airport, Agartala (here-in-after to as the ‘O.P.2’). 

 

2. The Complainant's case, in brief, is that the Complainant booked air tickets on 05.08.2021 from Agartala for him and his wife, namely, Smt. Shyamali Bhowmik through online travel ticket portal of O.P.1 to travel by Indigo Airlines from Agartala to Goa via Kolkata vide Indigo Flight No. 6E-833 and 6E–634 with PNR No. QPWRXN. The booking ID towards booking the tickets, as issued by O.P.1 was EMT 85468081 against his online payment of Rs.14,668/- for the same. The flight was scheduled from Agartala to Goa on 28.08.2021 and accordingly, the Complainant and his wife went for a web-check-in for travelling by his scheduled flight. After undertaking the web check, the Complainant received an e-mail from Indigo Airlines regarding their issue of original tax invoice indicating the break-up as air-fare charges Rs.12,962/- and airport charges Rs.768/- which accounts for an aggregating amount Rs.13,730/-. On receipt of the invoice, the Complainant brought the matter to the notice of the customer-care of O.P.1 demanding the excess amount of Rs.938/- (Rs.14,668/- minus Rs.13,730/-) realised from him. But the response from the O.P.1 was in the negative.  As the flight was scheduled on 28th August, 2021, the Complainant and his wife had to travel on the scheduled date as he booked other logistics on the basis of his scheduled travel plan to Goa. It is alleged by the Complainant that the O.P.1 charged for an extra price of Rs.938/-from him without assigning any justification for charging the extra price over and above the tax invoice price mentioned by the Indigo Airlines and, therefore, it is an unfair trade practice adopted by the O.P.1. Being aggrieved so, the Complainant filed this complaint petition for redressal of his grievances against the O.Ps. Hence, this case.

 

3. The O.P. No.1 and O.P.2 contested the case by filing written statements while denying the charges/ allegations which have been leveled against them. The principal and striking points of the written statements submitted by the O.P.1 and O.P.2 are as follows:

(i) The main contention made out by the O.P.1 is that a party who wants to book ticket through their website does need to comply with the terms and conditions displayed in the website before booking tickets. Therefore, by agreeing the terms and conditions prior to booking tickets are binding upon them during the post-period of the date of booking such ticket. The Complainant agreed the terms and conditions while booking his ticket and, therefore, can not shift away now from the stipulated terms and conditions agreed upon by him. It is also submitted that the pricing of the tickets is subject to change/vary with times and, therefore, dynamic in nature. The O.P.1 purchases tickets in bulk from the airlines which results to offering tickets at a cheaper price to the customers and the same is reflected on the website of the O.P.1 mentioning price applicable for a particular route at a particular time. Hence, this price difference. The Complainant undisputedly paid the price of the ticket as per rate displayed on the website at the time booking the tickets by the Complainant. It is also submitted by them that they have refunded the disputed amount Rs.938/- to the Complainant solely as a good-will gesture. It is also submitted by the O.P.1 that such refund of money cannot be deemed as an admission of liability on the part of them in any manner whatsoever.

(ii) It has been submitted by the O.P.2 through written statement that they are a stranger to the contract/ dealing/ communication between the Complainant and the O.P.1 and, therefore, O.P.2 can not be made liable for any actions of the O.P.1. It is also submitted by them that they have not received any further amount from O.P.1 other than the base fare and taxes as mentioned in the GST Tax invoice provided to the Complainant. It has also been submitted that since the Complainant claimed only the O.P.1 to be deficient in providing services and engaged in unfair trade practices by charging an extra amount Rs.938/- they have virtually no role to be fixed in respect of the complaint petition. It is further submitted by them that as per their learning the O.P.1 had admitted the excess amount of Rs.938/-, which was retained by them, and subsequently refunded back the same to the Complainant.  Therefore, according to their submission, aftermath of refunding the disputed amount nothing survives in the present complaint. Thus, they have prayed to absolve them from the proceedings of the complaint petition to be taken up during the subsequent course of action.

 

4. The Complainant submitted his evidence-in- chief as P.W.1. Smt. Shymali Bhowmik, wife of the Complainant submitted her evidence-in-chief as P.W.2 in support of the contention set forth in their complaint petition. The documents submitted by the Complainant through firisti dated 29.11.2021 and along with the written argument furnished on 06.01.2023 have been exhibited and marked as Exhibit-1 Series. One Mr.Akash Singh, Senior Executive Legal of O.P.1 has submitted his evidence-in-chief on behalf of the O.P.1. On behalf of the O.P.2 one Mr. Anmol Sood, Legal Counsel has submitted his evidence-in-chief.

 

5. Now, it is to be decided as follows:

(i) Whether the O.P.1 and O.P.2 have committed any deficiency of service to the Complainant or adopted any unfair trade practice in their dealings?

(ii) If ‘yes’, what would be the extent of relief to be allowed against the relief amount, as being sought for?

 

6. We have heard the arguments of both the parties. The essential points of arguments, as being set out by the parties are as follows:

(i) The Complainant has submitted a written argument. In the written argument it has been categorically mentioned that during his booking of air tickets from Agartala to Goa via Kolkata he has been charged an extra amount of Rs.938/-. The issue of paying extra amount came to his notice once he has received the tax invoice from O.P.2, whereby the O.P.2 outlined the break-up of the charges of tickets indicating an aggregating amount being the cost of the tickets booked by the Complainant. Thereafter, the Complainant contacted the customer care service of the O.P.1 demanding the extra amount of Rs.938/- which was charged from him illegally. But the Complainant was denied the refund while expressing inability on the part of the O.P.1 to refund the same. It has been admitted by the Complainant that at a subsequent stage on 02.02.2022 he got the refund of Rs.938/- in his bank account from the side of the O.P.1. It is further submitted by the Complainant that the O.P.1 has refunded the amount once the case is filed with the Commission and before their first appearance for participating in the proceedings of the case on 16.02.2022.  The Complainant also contended that the O.P.1 has admitted their guilt/default by refunding the amount during the post-period of filing the complaint petition to the Commission. It is also submitted that he had to wait for four months in getting refund of the excess amount from the O.P.1 and that too has been affected by O.P.1 after receiving the notice from the Commission with respect to the complaint petition. He also cited Section 2(6) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, whereby he tried to establish that there had been adoption of unfair trade practice by the O.P.1 by charging excess price over and above the actual price of the tickets. Therefore, he prayed to the Commission for allowing reliefs, as being sought by him.

(ii) On the other hand, the O.P.1 argued that the Complainant has to abide by the terms and conditions as being agreed upon while initiating the process of booking ticket by the Complainant. The terms and conditions are equally applicable during the post-period of purchase of the tickets. The Complainant paid price for the tickets as being displayed on their website. It is submitted that the pricing of the tickets is dynamic in nature and keeps on changing with times. It is also submitted that as the O.P.1 purchases tickets from the airlines in bulk which results to providing cheaper tickets to the customers/travelers. It is finally submitted by them that they have refunded the amount of Rs.938/- as a good-will gesture. It is further argued by O.P.1 that such gesture of theirs should not be construed as taking up the liability by them in terms of the complaints being made out by the Complainant. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed as there has no substance been left in the complaint petition after the refund of the amount.

 

7. We have gone through the materials on record carefully and the evidence submitted by the parties. On the point of complying the terms and conditions of O.P.1 by the Complainant, we are of the view that such terms and conditions does not provide any provision to charge extra amount over and beyond the actual fare/charges of the tickets. The other point being raised by the O.P.1 regarding the dynamic structure of fixing the price of tickets with times, we hold the opinion that a customer must be charged the prevailing price at the time of his or her booking tickets by O.P.1 and by no means O.P.1 can charge an amount over and beyond the exact price of ticket prevailed for a particular route of air travel. But here in this case, we find that the Complainant had been guided and instructed to pay an extra charge of Rs.938/- over and beyond the price of the tickets. Confirmation towards charging of extra amount for booking tickets by the O.P.1 can be well drawn on the basis of the revelation made by the O.P.2 in their tax invoice sent to the Complainant defining the exact price of the ticket. It is further hold by us that the O.P.1 did not refund the excess amount initially and rather they preferred to retain the amount illegally for four months. Once, the complaint petition was filed by the Complainant to the Commission and notice was served upon the O.P.1 there unto, they felt the exigency to refund the amount hastily which does imply unequivocally that O.P.1 had charged the extra amount which was not permissible in accordance to the then prevailed exact price of the tickets. Such act amounts to engaging in unfair trade practice on the part of O.P.1.  

 

8. Now, in respect of O.P.2, we consider that O.P.2 has virtually and effectively no role to be played between the agreement executed between the Complainant and the O.P.1. O.P.2 is the airline operator which sales tickets through O.P.1. In this respect, we hold that O.P.2 has nothing to do in the matter and nowhere can be connected/ implicated in the case.

 

9. Now, we hold it beyond doubt that the Complainant has been successful to prove his case in respect of adopting of unfair trade practice by the O.P.1 to our entire satisfaction. As they have refunded the disputed amount/excess amount, we will now decide the quantum of relief to be allowed for the sufferings and harassment being subjected by the Complainant caused due to the delayed refund of the amount which was illegitimately charged by O.P.1 in excess of the exact fare for booking the tickets. 

 

10. In view of the points being explained in the foregone paras, we direct the O.P.1 to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing harassment and mental agony due to illegal charging of extra amount over and beyond the exact price of the air tickets. We also order that the O.P.1 shall pay a litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant. Both the amounts shall be paid by the O.P.1 to the Complainant within two months from the date of this judgment, failing which the amount shall bear an interest @ 9% P.A. till realization.

 

 

11. Accordingly, all the points are decided in this case. Supply certified copy of the judgment to all the parties free of cost. 

 

Announced.

 

 

 

 

SRI R. PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

 

 

Dr (SMT) B. PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA,

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.