Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/135/2022

M/S EASY MY TRIP PLANNERS LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SURENDER PAL SHARMA - Opp.Party(s)

SANJEEV SAHAY & ABHAY CHITRAVANSHI ADV.

30 Nov 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Appeal No	:	A/135/2022
Date  of  Institution	:	13/10/2022
Date   of   Decision	:	30/11/2022

 

 

 

 

 

M/s Easy Trip Planners Limited through its Authorized Representative, 223, 1^st and 2^nd Floor, Patparganj Industrial Area, New Delhi – 110092.

…. Appellant

 

V E R S U S

 

 

1]   Surender Pal Sharma son of Din Dayal Sharma, Resident of House No.833, Sector 40-A, Chandigarh – 160036.

 

2]   Vistara Airlines through its Managing Director, Head Office: Tata Sia Airlines Limited, Jeevan Bharti Tower-1, 10^th Floor, 124 Connaught Circus, New Delhi.

…… Respondents

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI    PRESIDENT

MRS. PADMA PANDEY            MEMBER

          MR. RAJESH K. ARYA           MEMBER

          Mr. PREETINDER SINGH         MEMBER

 

PRESENT	:	Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Advocate (on Video conferencing) along with
		Sh. Mohit Garg, Advocate for the Appellant.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

 

 

This appeal is directed against the order dated 02.05.2022, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it allowed the Consumer Complaint bearing no. CC/88/2021, in the following terms:-

“6]  Taking into consideration the above discussion and findings, the deficiency in service on the part of OPs is proved. Accordingly, the present complaint is allowed against the OPs No.1 & 2 with direction to jointly & severally pay a compository amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for the harassment suffered by him due to their deficient service, as well as litigation expenses.     

     This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties jointly & severally within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which they shall also be liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.7000/- to the complainant apart from the above relief.”

2.      Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was the case of the Respondent No.1/Complainant that on 18.09.2020 he booked air tickets of Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2 Airline (Vistara Airlines), through Official Portal of Appellant/ Opposite Party No.1 (Ease My Trip), for the route Mumbai to Chandigarh scheduled to depart on 22.10.2020.  However, the Respondent No.2/ Opposite Party No.2 on 18.09.2020 cancelled the scheduled onward flight No.UK-651 from Mumbai to Chandigarh for departure on 22.10.2020 and sent message to this effect to the Respondent No.1/ Complainant. Thereafter, the Respondent No.1/ Complainant sought refund of said cancelled flight, but Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2 instead offered Open Ticket valid till 31.3.2021 with applicability of difference of fare, which complainant refused to accept and demanded refund, which was refused on flimsy ground. Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

3.      In the reply filed before the Ld. Lower Commission, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, the Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 pleaded that the payment of Rs.4006/- as full refund was made to the Respondent No.1/Complainant as received from Air Vistara on 20.05.2021 towards the cancelled flight. It was pleaded that there was no cause of action against the Appellant/ Opposite Party No.1 to file the Complaint as on being contacted by the Respondent No.1/Complainant, the Appellant/ Opposite Party No.1 resolved the issue with concerned airlines/Opposite Party No.2 (Respondent No.2 herein) and on receipt of such refund from the concerned Airlines, the Appellant/ Opposite Party No.1 processed it to the Respondent No.1/ Complainant.  Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 had prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.

 

4.      The Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2 while defending the cause, before the Ld. Lower Commission, pleaded that the ticket in question was booked through Travel Agent (Ease My Trip). Any refund which was processed by the Airline has to be routed through the Travel Agent. It was asserted that after cancellation of the scheduled flight No. UK-651 to be departed on 22.10.2020, the Respondent No.1/Complainant was given an option of an open ticket being valid from 31.3.2021, but the same was not acceptable to him and consequently, a refund of Rs.4006/- was made to the Travel Agent of the Respondent No.2/ Complainant (i.e. Ease My Trip/ Opposite Party No.1 (Appellant herein).  It was submitted that the amount sought by the Respondent No.2/ Complainant to be refunded has already been refunded to the Travel Agent by Respondent No.2/ Opposite Party No.2, who in turn remitted the refund in favour of the Respondent No.1/ Complainant.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations of complainant, the Respondent No.2/ Opposite Party No.2 had also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.      On appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence adduced on record, Ld. Lower Commission allowed the Complaint of the Respondent No.1/ Complainant as noticed in the opening para of this order.     

 

6.      Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Opposite Party No.1.

 

7.      We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.

 

8.      The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Ld. Lower Commission has rightly passed the impugned order by appreciating the entire material placed before it. 

 

9.      After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant Appeal is liable to be dismissed in limine for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

 

10.      Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 02.05.2022 rendered by the Ld.Lower Commission on the ground that the Ld.Lower Commission overlooked the status of the Appellant of being an intermediary and that it was the sole responsibility of the Airline to issue refund in the event of cancellation of their flight and thus, the intermediary cannot be held liable for something they were never entitled to from the customer. However, we are not impressed with the same, in as much as it is borne on record that the refund of the cancelled ticket was processed by the Opposite Parties only after filing of the present complaint by the Complainant (Respondent No.1 herein). Further, it is evident on record that earlier to the filing of the complaint, the Respondent No.1/ Complainant was not given the refund of the cancelled ticket when the flight booked by him was cancelled at the end of Respondent No.2/ Opposite Party No.2 and instead of giving the refund, the Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2 offered Open Ticket till 31.3.2021 to the Respondent No.1/ Complainant, which was refused by him and requested for refund only. The Ld. Lower Commission in these set of circumstances rightly observed that the request of the Complainant (Respondent No.1 herein) was not considered and entertained by the Opposite Parties, due to which he was forced to file the complaint for a meager amount of Rs.4007/-. Furthermore, from the version of Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 it is emphatically clear that the refund was made to the Respondent No.1/complainant on 21.05.2021, whereas the flight was cancelled on 18.09.2020. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, the Appellant/ Opposite Party No.1 cannot absolve itself from its legal liability qua the Complainant/ Respondent No.1. It is demonstrable from a reading of the impugned Order of the Ld. Lower Commission that it is certainly not an order passed without reasons or without applying the judicious mind. The facts and circumstances of the case have been gone into, weighed and considered, and due analysis of the same has been made. It also does not appear to be an order passed without taking into account the available evidence.

 

11.      No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the Appellant.

 

12.      In the wake of the position, as sketched out above, we are dissuaded to interfere with the impugned order rendered by the Ld. Lower Commission. The appeal being bereft of merit is accordingly dismissed in limine.

 

13.      In view of the present Appeal being dismissed, the pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.

 

14.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

 

15.      The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

30^th Nov., 2022                                Sd/-/-                                (RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

                                  (PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

                                  (RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

“Dutt”