Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/75/2023

MAKEMY TRIP INDIA PVT LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHANKAR JINDAL AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

NITIN BHASIN

30 Nov 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	:	75 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	25.04.2023
Date of Decision	:	30.11.2023

 

 

 

 

 

 

MakeMy Trip (India) Pvt. Limited, Building No.5, Tower-B, 19^th Floor, Building No.5 (EPITOM), DLF Cyber City, Phase-3, Gurugram-122002, Haryana.

….Appellant/Opposite Party No.1.

Versus

1]      Mr. Shankar Jindal S/o Sh. Jai Prakash Jindal, R/o House No.2527, Sector 27-C, Chandigarh.

...Respondent/Complainant.

2]      NokScoot Airlines, Unit 302A, 3^rd Floor, ABW Tower, M.G. Road, Near IFFCO Chowk, Gurugram, Haryana – 122002 (India), through its Managing Director/Chairman/Authorised Officer.

...Respondent/Opposite Party No.2.

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

ARGUED BY :-  

Sh. Nitin Bhasin, Advocate  for the appellant.

Respondents exparte vide order dated 02.06.2023.

 

PER  RAJESH  K. ARYA, MEMBER

                   This appeal has been filed by opposite party No.1 – MakeMy Trip (India) Pvt. Limited (appellant herein) against order dated 16.11.2022 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘District Commission), vide which, consumer complaint No.233 of 2019 filed by the complainant – Sh. Shankar Jindal (respondent No.1 herein) has been partly allowed in the following manner:-

“14.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OP No.1 & 2 are directed as under :-

1. To refund amount of ₹11,691/-to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of cancellation of flight till realization.
2. to pay an amount of ₹7,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹5,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

15.    Since neither any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice has been alleged nor any relief has been prayed against OP No.3, therefore, the consumer complaint qua it stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

16.         This order be complied with by the OP No.1 & 2 within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.”

2]             Briefly stated the facts as narrated in the impugned order passed by the District Commission reads thus:-

“1.     Averments are that the complainant intended to visit Bangkok, Thailand for tourism purpose from 09.03.2019 to 18.03.2019 and consequently booked a return ticket on the flight of OP No.2, on 29.12.2018 through the web portal of OP No.1 (Annexure C-1). The complainant also got permission to leave country sanctioned by the Govt. of Haryana whereby he was to return back to India no later than 18.03.2019 (Annexure C-4). However, the complainant reached the Indira Gandhi Airport, New Delhi on 09.03.2019. Copy of the said boarding pass is annexed as Annexure C-5.

         As per complainant, on 17.03.2019 when he checked out from his hotel in Bangkok, Thailand at 13:00 hrs, well in time against the flight time of 22:35 hrs. He had a bad experience when confirmed flight was cancelled by OP No.2. Thus, the complainant was shocked and utterly perplexed and surprised to find that the return flight from Thailand to India has been cancelled for no rhyme or reason and without his prior consent or notice and was now rescheduled to 19.03.2019. Subsequently, without wasting any time, the complainant contacted OP No.1 explaining the whole problematic situation including his ex-India permission till 18.03.2019. The complainant further requested the Opposite Parties to reschedule the flight on the same day i.e., 18.03.2019 (Annexure C-6). However, it was of no avail. Thereafter complainant requested his far away relative in Thailand and got booked a ticket for himself from Bangkok to Delhi for (Thai Baht) THB 9,799.77/- i.e., Rs.21,265.5009/- (Annexure C-8). Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant has filed the instant complaint.

2.      OP No.1 contested the consumer complaint filed its written reply and stated that the office of the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) issued guidelines dated 06.08.2010, whereby it directed the airlines to refund full amount to customers, in case of cancellation of flights/tickets by the airlines. In the present case, concerned airlines is liable to refund/compensate the complainant for the alleged cancellation of the flight, hence, OP No.1 shall not be liable for the same. As per the policy of the DGCA, the Airlines are bound to process the refund in accordance with CAR Section 3, Series M, Part II. The concerned Airlines i.e., OP No.2 is liable for the refund to the complainant. A copy of the guidelines issued by the DGCA is annexed as Annexure R-3. It is also submitted that the OP No.1 is not responsible or liable for any reschedule or change of routes, timings of the flights. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP No.1.

3.      Notice of the complaint was sent to OP No.2 seeking its version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of OP No.2 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte on 03.12.2019.   

4.      OP No.3 contested the consumer complaint filed its written reply and stated that the complainant relate to deficiency of service and DGCA being the Civil Aviation Safety regulator does not have any role in the disputes related to deficiency of services viz., luggage fee, missing of baggage, cancellation of flight without intimation etc. between passengers/customers and their airlines. Accordingly, it has nothing to do with such matters. The issue involved in the said complaint is the purely a matter between the complainant and the OP No.1 & 2 only. Moreover, no relief has been claimed against the OP No.3 by the complainant. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP No.3.”

3]             After hearing the contesting parties and going through the material available on record, the District Commission partly allowed the complaint against the appellant and opposite party No.2 (respondent No.2 herein), as stated above.

4]                The order of the District Commission has been assailed by the appellant on the ground that the District Commission has failed to consider the fact that as per the CAR guidelines issued by DGCA, it was the duty of respondent No.2 to inform respondent No.1/complainant for rescheduled or cancelled flight and the appellant, which is merely a facilitator was not responsible to take follow-ups from the airlines. It has further been stated that once the confirmed ticket was issued to respondent No.1/complainant, the appellant was discharged from its obligations and duties qua the said booking. It has further been stated that as per terms and conditions provided under User Agreement, which respondent No.1/complainant duly accepted, being a facilitator, the appellant is not attributable to any liability for any aspects of the standards of services provided by the concerned service providers. It has further been stated that the District Commission also failed to appreciate the fact that after securing and receiving the amount of ₹6,396.45 on 12.04.2019 from respondent No.2, which only occurred due to continuous pursuance of the appellant, the appellant has duly forwarded the same to respondent No.1/complainant on 12.04.2019 in his preferred credit card account, which has been deliberately and willfully concealed by respondent No.1/complainant. Lastly prayer for setting aside the impugned order has been made by the appellant.

5]                On the other hand, when none appeared on behalf of the respondents despite due service of notice upon them through email on 26.05.2023, they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 02.06.2023 by this Commission.

6]                It may be stated here that there is a delay of 109 days in filing the appeal for condonation whereof, the appellant has moved a miscellaneous application No.338 of 2023. It has been stated in the application that immediately after passing of the impugned order dated 16.11.2022, the appellant preferred a review application bearing No.MA/1/2023 on 03.01.2023 before the District Commission and the District Commission was pleased to issue notice in the said application to the respondents herein. It has further been stated that the said review application was withdrawn by the appellant on 06.03.2023 with liberty to challenge the judgment dated 16.11.2022 by way of filing an appeal before this Commission and accordingly, the District Commission granted liberty to file an appeal. It has further been stated that excluding the period of pendency of the review application, there is no delay in filing the present appeal and in case, if any delay has caused, the same is neither intentional nor deliberate. In our concerted view and in view of law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Pundlik Jalam Patil Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448 and Basawaraj and Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, the appellant has shown rational reason for the delay, which has been caused due to bonafide reasons. As such, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Miscellaneous Application No.338 of 2023 stands disposed of accordingly.

7]                Now coming to the merits of the case, it may be stated here that the contentions raised that it was the duty of respondent No.2 to inform respondent No.1/complainant for rescheduled or cancelled flight and the appellant, being a facilitator was not responsible to take follow-ups from the airlines; that once the confirmed ticket was issued to respondent No.1/complainant, the appellant was discharged from its obligations and duties qua the said booking and that as per terms and conditions provided under User Agreement, which respondent No.1/complainant duly accepted, the appellant is not attributable to any liability for any aspects of the standards of services provided by the concerned service providers, it may be stated here that these contentions are bereft of any substance as the appellant/opposite party No.1 could not leave respondent No.1/complainant in lurch by just telling him to contact opposite party No.2, when his confirmed flight from Thailand to India got cancelled by opposite party No.2 and rather, the appellant should have helped the complainant to come out of that situation by arranging some another flight for him at that time. Respondent No.1/complainant kept on requesting the appellant and opposite party No.2 but of no avail and ultimately, he requested his far away relative in Thailand and got booked his return ticket to Delhi from Bangkok by spending Rs.9,799.77. Being a government employee, it was mandatory for respondent No.1 to return in time as his ex-India leave was up-to 18.03.2019, which could not be altered with. Despite knowing all this, the appellant did not come forward to help him. Respondent No.1/complainant did all what he could do and finally, managed to return on 18.03.2019. Neither the appellant nor opposite party No.2 helped respondent No.1. By saying that it had nothing to do with the problematic situation in which respondent No.1 had been put to or it had no liability for the same, the appellant has shown a very unsympathetic and callous approach and further failed to render proper service. Prima facie, the deficiency in rendering service on the part of the appellant is writ large as it turned its back on to respondent No.1 in the times, when he was in very much need of help and support of the appellant. No satisfactory solution was provided to respondent No.1, which caused undue physical harassment and mental agony to respondent No.1. As regards the contention raised that the District Commission also failed to appreciate the fact that respondent No.1/complainant had already received an amount of ₹6,396.45 from respondent No.2 on 12.04.2019, it may be stated here that neither any such plea was ever raised by the appellant/opposite party No.1 in its reply dated 04.06.2019 filed before the District Commission nor any documentary evidence was led by the appellant in support of said contention. In appeal, for the first time, this submission has been made that respondent No.2 had paid ₹6,396.45 to respondent No.1/complainant. On 17.07.2023, after arguing at length, counsel for the appellant submitted that he is unable to produce any receipt with regard to payment of ₹6,396.45 to respondent No.1/complainant on 12.04.2019. He sought 7 days time to produce the said document, which was granted. Again on 26.07.2023, two weeks more time was granted to the appellant to produce the said document. On the next date of hearing i.e. 25.08.2023, again two weeks more time was granted for the said purpose but the appellant has failed to produce any such document on record to prove payment of ₹6,396.45 by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1/complainant. Therefore, in the absence of any documentary evidence on record with regard to the aforesaid payment, the contention raised by the appellant in this regards stands rejected. The District Commission, in our concerted view, after considering each and every aspect of the case, has rightly held the appellant as well as opposite party No.2 deficient in rendering service and partly allowed the complaint by ordering refund besides awarding compensation for mental agony and harassment and costs of litigation. Therefore, the order of the District Commission, being just and legal, is liable to be upheld and the appeal deserves dismissal.

8]                For the reasons recorded above, this appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed with no orders as to costs.

9]                Accordingly, pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of having become infructous.

10]              Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

11]              File be consigned to the Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

30.11.2023.

(RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Ad