Haryana

Ambala

CC/370/2019

Nikhil Narwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Spicejet Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

15 Jul 2022

ORDER

 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

                                                                      Complaint case no.         :     370 of 2019

                                                          Date of Institution           :     06.11.2019

                                                          Date of decision     :     15.07.2022.

         

Nikhil Narwal age 26 years son of Shri Ashwani Narwal resident of Village Dhanaura, Tehsil Mullana, District Ambala.

                                                                             ……. Complainant.

                                      Versus

1.       Spicejet Limited, 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase IV, Gurgaon-122016, through CEO.

2.       Makemy Trip (India) Private Limited B-36, Ist Floor, Pusa Road, New Delhi-110005, India through Chairman and Group CEO.

3.       Punjab National Bank, Dosarka, Tehsil Mullana, District Ambala through Branch Manager.

 

                                                                    ….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

 

Present:       Complainant in person.

OP No.1 already ex parte.

None for the OP No.2.

Shri Munish Sharma, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.3.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To refund Rs.40,000/-, i.e. the cost of the new ticket to fly from Hongkong International Airport to Delhi International Airport.
2. To refund Rs.30,000/-, for taxi and buses for going on each and every port nearby Hongkong International Airport.
3. To pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. To pay Rs.2,10,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.

                                   

2.                Brief facts of the case are that complainant was having visa for China valid for the period from 09.09.2019 to 09.12.2019.  Complainant booked online flight with the OP No.1, through OP No.2 and on 08.08.2019, paid Rs.29,774/-, through OP No.3 from saving account No.4825000100033167. At the time of boarding from Delhi International Airport, complainant told the airlines representative thrice that he is having Visa for China only and to transit from Hongkong to China as to whether Visa is required. The said representative told him that as he is having a ferry ticket then he will not find any difficulty to transit from Hongkong International Airport to china main land. On Monday, 14.10.2019, at 10:10 PM, Complainant boarded the flight from Delhi T3 and arrived at Hongkong International Airport SAR China/T1 at 06.10:AM. Complainant received at Nansa City through ferry ship and remained there upto 25.10.2019.  Complainant went to nearby port where he was staying to hire ferry to reach at Hongkong International Airport to take his morning flight to Delhi but he was not allowed to ride the ferry and there the persons on duty told him that they do not provide service to Spicejet. Complainant tried to contact the OPs on phone but could not get any response, thereafter, complainant used taxi/bus to go to following ports 1. Shenzhen Port 2. Shenzhen International Airport 3. Shekou Port 4. Zhongshan Port and other port near Hong Kong International Airport within China main land, to enter the Hong Kong International Airport but none of the port was ready to give services to Spicejet Airlines. Complainant sent an Email dated 25.10.2019, to the OP No.1, but not received any reply from it. Complainant had to purchase a new ticket of 3914 CNY which is equal to Rs.40,000/-. After coming to India complainant sent an Email dated 30.10.2019, to the OPs but they refused to resolve the issue. On 02.11.2019, complainant again sent an Email to the OPs requesting them to resolve the issue. Complainant received a vague reply from the OP No.1 Complainant suffered a monetary loss of Rs.1,00,000/-. By not providing the proper services, the OPs have committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

3.                Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OP No.1 before this Commission, therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 26.12.2019.

4.                Upon notice, OP No.2, appeared and filed written version, raised preliminary objections with regard to clean hands etc.  On merits, it is stated that the answering OP is a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It merely acts a facilitator the confirmed air tickets bookings on behalf of its customers with the concerned service providers. Upon receiving the confirmation from concerned service providers, it generates booking ID and share with the customer. All the online transactions by the user of the website or the mobile application of the answering OP are governed by the website and application’s user agreement, applicable to the person intending to purchase or enquiring for any products and/or services of the answering OP. Once the confirmed ticket is issued to the customer, the answering OP is discharge from its obligations and duties qua the said booking. Complainant has miserably failed to disclose any cause of action against the answering OP. Hence, the present complaint filed against the answering OP by the complainant, deserves dismissal with exemplary costs. 

5.                Upon notice, OP No.3, appeared and filed written version, raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, not come with clean hands and suppressed the material facts, locus standi and cause of action etc.  On merits, it is stated that complainant is having saving account with the answering OP and on 08.08.2019, an amount of Rs.29,774/- was transferred from his saving account to the OP No.2. Rest of the allegations levelled by the complainant were denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the present complaint filed by the complainant against it with costs.

6.                Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-15 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Shri Ekanh Mehra, working as Deputy Manager (Legal) & Authorised Officer of MakemyTrip (India) Pvt. Ltd., having its corporate office at 19^th Floor, Tower A,B and C, Building No.5, DLF Epitome, DLF Phase-III, Cybercity, Gurugram-122002 as Annexure OP/A alongwith documents OP-1  to OP-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2. Learned counsel for the OP No.3 has made a statement that written version of OP No.3 be read as evidence of OP No.3 and closed the evidence of the OP No.3.                                                                                              7.   We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the OP No.3 and have also gone through the record very carefully and also the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the OP No.2 on 19.05.2022.  

8.                The complainant has contended that on 14.10.2019, at the time of boarding the flight from Delhi International Airport for Hong Kong International Airport, complainant asked the spicejet airlines representative, if any Visa is required to travel by ferry to go to china from Hong Kong International Airport ,but the said representative told him that since he is having ferry ticket therefore there is no need to get visa to travel from Hong Kong International Airport to China Main Land. Complainant reached at the Hong Kong International Airport on 14.10.2019 at 06:10 AM and thereafter reached at Nansa City, through ferry ship and remained there upto 25.10.2019. Complainant went to the nearby port to take a ferry to reach Hong Kong International Airport to take morning flight to Delhi but he was not allowed to board the ferry on the ground that they do not give service to the Spicejet Airlines. He tried to contact the OPs on phone but got no response, thereafter, he went to each and every nearby port to fetch the ferry to reach Hong Kong International Airport but nobody allowed him to get into the ferry on the ground that they don’t provide services to the Spicejet Airlines. In this situation, he has to purchase a new ticket to come back from China to India for which he had to pay 3914CNY equallent to Rs.40,000/-. He requested the OPs to resolve his issue and to refund Rs.40,000/- which he spent to purchase a new/fresh ticket to reach to Delhi from China but they did not pay any heed to his request.

9.                The learned counsel for the OP No.3 has contended that the complainant is having his saving account with the OP No.3 and on 08.08.2019, an amount of Rs.29,774/-, was transferred from his saving account to the OP No.2. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3, thus the complaint filed by the complainant against it,  may be dismissed with costs.

10.              From the perusal of copy of Passport Annexure C-2, it is evident that complainant was having Visa for China for the period from 09.09.2019 to 09.12.2019. From Annexure C-3, it is clear that the spicejet issued ticket to the complainant to travel on 14.10.2019 from Delhi/T3  to Hong Kong INTL, APT,SAR CHINA/T1 and issued return ticket to travel on 25.10.2019 from Hong Kong INTL, APT,SAR CHINA/T1 to Delhi/T3. The plea of the complainant is that on 14.10.2019, at the time of boarding the flight from Delhi International Airport for Hong Kong International Airport, complainant asked the spicejet airlines representative, if any Visa is required to travel by ferry to go to china from Hong Kong International Airport ,but the said representative told him that since he is having ferry ticket therefore there is no need to get visa to travel from Hong Kong International Airport to China Main Land. However, in support of this plea nothing has been placed on record by the complainant, whereas from the perusal of Annexure C-13, it is revealed that the Spicejet Limited i.e OP No.1, in response to the complaint filed by the complainant, on 30.10.2019, replied that it has no tie up with the ferry company, neither provide facilities for direct transfer of passengers to other airlines nor provide ferry service. It connect passengers from point to point and connecting passengers should have transit visa/PAR before arriving in Hong Kong. In view of the reply given by the OP No.1 to the complainant and in the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence we do not find any force in the contention of the complainant that at the time of boarding flight from Delhi International Airport for Hong Kong International Airport, the official of the spice jet, who was on duty told him that he does not require visa to come from China to Hong Kong through ferry. Be that as it may, we are of the view that the complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of merits, consequently, we dismiss the same. The parties are left to bear their own costs.  Certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on: 15.07.2022.

 

 

                   (Ruby Sharma)                                            (Neena Sandhu)

                       Member                                                    President