Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/210/2018

Make My Trip India Pvt. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sh. Ravindra Kumar Mittal s/o Late Magan Bihari - Opp.Party(s)

Ravindra Jain

24 Sep 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 210/2018

 

Make Mytrip (India) Pvt.Ltd. through Chief Manager Head office Tower-A, S.P. Infocity, 243 Udhyog Vihar, Phase I Gurgaon, Haryana & ors.

Vs.

Sh.Ravindra Kumar Mittal r/o Flat No. 804, Akshay Nilay Apartments, Hawa Sarak, Jaipur & ors.

 

Date of Order 24.9.2019

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Hon'ble Mrs.Meena Mehta -Member

 

Mr. Gopal Shastri with Mr. Rahul Lodha counsel for the appellants

Mr.B.L.Ahir counsel for the respondents

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

2

 

The appeal is filed against the order passed by the District Forum, Jaipur 1^st dated 8.2.2018 whereby the claim is allowed against the appellant.

 

The contention of the appellant is that as per the booking conditions only courts situated in NCR Delhi is the jurisdiction. It is true that in User Agreement there is a condition that MMT considers itself and intends to the jurisdiction only of the courts of NCR Delhi. The contention of the appellant is that respondent is bound by the user agreement. Be that may be the case there is no contract between the parties to opt only for the jurisdiction of the courts situated at NCR Delhi. Only the appellant has shown such intention and further more in the present case as per the contention of the complainant respondent he booked the tour with the appellant at his office at Jaipur and also paid the money on-line. The appellant has not specifically denied these contentions in his reply meaning thereby that cause of action has arisen only in Jaipur.

 

The appellant has relied upon (1983) 4 SCC 707 Globe

 

3

 

Transport Corporation Vs Triveni Engineering Works where the apex court has held that parties can select a particular forum and exclude the other forums if there are more than one forums where a suit can be filed but here in the present case as no cause of action has arisen in Delhi the jurisdiction was only with the Jaipur Courts. It is not in dispute that appellant having branch office at Jaipur and when tour was booked here, only Jaipur court was having jurisdiction and parties were not having option to choose the jurisdiction of NCR Delhi as no cause of action has arisen there and reliance could be placed on 2010 CTJ 2 (Supreme Court ) CP ) Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Co. Hence, objection as regard to jurisdiction is not available to the appellant.

 

Reliance has also been placed on (2010) 3 SCC 1 Trimex Intgernational FZE Ltd. Vs. Vedanta Aluminium Ltd. where the apex court was of the opinion that when there is no signed agreement between the parties then inference could be taken from various documents, e-mails, letters etc. There is no dispute about this preposition.

 

Fuirther reliance has been placed on AIR 2002 Supreme

4

 

Court 2402 Shriram city Union Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rama Mishra where also the apex court was of the opinion that the parties can choose one out of the two competent courts to decide their dispute but here in the present case in the jurisdiction of Delhi court no cause aof action has arisen as the tour was booked from Jaipur office.

 

The other contention of the appellant is that the complainant himself has to submit on-line visa application and he could get the UK visa only on 18.8.2013. Thereafter Schengen visa could not be obtained and appellants are not deficient.

 

As per user agreement visa was to be obtained by the individual traveller. There is no dispute about the fact that user agreement contains such condition but as per Ex. 1 which is the booking document between the parties Schengen and UK visa fees are being charged by the appellant and in reply to the complaint it is the admission of the appellant that they have to complete the proceedings as regard to issuance of the visa for UK as well as Schengen. Hence, it was the duty of the

 

5

 

appellant to obtain the required visa.

 

Further it may also be noted that the respondent asked for the re-scheduling of the tour programme but appellant did not responded for the same. When the respondents have paid the amount due in time it was the duty of the appellants to arrange the visa. The respondents have co-operated with the appellants inspite of this visa could not be issued in time. It was the duty of the appellant to re-schedule the dates. The appellants have asked for the cancellation charges and so also the new rates for booking which was deficiency on the part of the appellants.

 

The appellant has also relied upon (1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 704 Bharathi Knitting Co. Vs. DHL Worldwide Express courier, III (2010) CPJ 190 (NC) Sahara India Commercial Corpn. Ltd. Vs. P.Gajendra Chary where it has been held that both the parties are bound by terms of the contract. There cannot be any dispute about this preposition.

 

In view of the above , the Forum below has rightly held

 

6

 

the appellants deficient. There is no merit in this appeal and stands dismissed

 

(Meena Mehta ) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

nm