BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MANGALORE
Dated this the 31ST MARCH 2016
PRESENT
PRESENT: 1. Smt. Asha Shetty, Hon’ble President 2. Smt.Lavanya M. Rai, Hon’ble Member
ORDER IN
COMPLAINT NO. 35/2015
(Admitted on 17.01.2015)
BETWEEN:
Prakash Nadahalli
(Herein afterwards called N. Prakash)
S/o. Suryanarayan Rao N
‘Chiguru’ Gurunagar (west),
Maryhill, Konchady,
Mangalore-575008. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Complainant: In person)
VERSUS
The authorized signatory, Goibibo. Com
IBIBO Group Private Ltd., 5th Floor,
Good Earth City Centre, Malibu Town, Sector-50,
Gurgaon-Haryana-Pincode-122018.
……. OPPOSITE PARTY
(Opposite Party : Ex-Parte )
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY
I. 1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, wherein the complainant alleges deficiency in service as against the Opposite party claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant is working as faculty member for corporation bank staff Training College. The opposite party is a company dealing in online booking the air tickets for the general public through its website. On 27th September 2014, the complainant booked an air ticket through website goibibo.com for a journey from Mumbai to New Delhi on 12th October-2014 at 19.00 by flight being ‘AI888’ terminal ‘1A’ Air India, PNR No. ZDGJM booking ID TUAS8G8C8).
The opposite party has shown in their website and booked for the flight being AI888 19.00 12t6h OC 2014, Mumbai to New Delhi flight ‘AI888’ terminal 1A Air India, PNR No. ZDGJM, but the flight was not operational. As a result, complainant could not travel in the flight booked through goibibo.com.
It is stated that, when the complainant went to Airport terminal ‘IA’, Air India officials declared that there was no such flight and gave an endorsemtnt that “AI888 No OPS Full Refund in order. No other alternative arrangements were made.
It is stated that, in view of the above the complainant could not attend the morning session at staff trainings center New Delhi. Further complainant has to spent Rs. 3,000/- towards Taxi fare, staying at Mumbai on 12.10.2014 and food. Further the complainant forced to go by another flight by paying extra mount of Rs. 7,804/- . Feeling aggrieved by the above, the complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Party to pay sum Rs. 14,804/-as a damages with interest and also pay cost of the proceedings.
II. 1. Version notice served to the opposite party by R.P.A.D. In spite of receiving version notice neither appeared nor contested the case before this Fora, Hence we have proceeded ex-parte as against the opposite party. The acknowledgment marked as court Document No. 1.
In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:-
- Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
III. In support of the complaint, Sri. Prakash Nadahalli (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and produced Ex. C1 to C-3. Opposite Party ex-parte.
We have considered the arguments and also considered the materials that was placed before the Forum and answer the points are as follows:-
Point No.(i): Affirmative
Point No.(ii) to (iv): As per the final order.
Reasons
IV. Point No. (i) to (iv): In order to substantiate the averments made in the complaint, the complainant filed affidavit supported by documents i.e. Ex C1 to C-3. The Ex C-1 is the flight ticket shows that the complainant booked flight from Mumbai to New Delhi by paying Rs. 4.396/- through opposite party for the journey dated 12th October 2015. The Ex C-3 is the invoice shows that since the opposite party not provided flight on the above said day the complainant had to book alternative flight by paying Rs.12,200/-. The communications between the complainant and the opposite party shows that the complainant in this case booked air ticket with the opposite party to fly from Mumbai to Delhi on 12.10.2014. The said booking was confirmed but later without any intimation to the complainant, the flight was cancelled. Because of the above situation the complainant had to book another flight by paying extra amount i.e. of Rs. 7,804/-. The opposite party should have intimated the complainant in advance. Since the opposite party not intimated the complainant in advance the opposite party is liable to pay reasonable damages for the inconvenience caused to the complainant.
It is pertinent to note that the complainant forced to fly on the same day in another airways by paying extra amount other than stay, food etc., for no mistake on his part. The opposite party failed to justify their problem with regard to the cancellation of flight on the said day. The opposite party not appeared nor contested the case till this day the entire material evidence placed on record not contradicted nor controverted. Therefore we hold that the opposite party is negligent and the service rendered by them amounts to deficiency in service.
In view of the above discussion, we hold that the opposite party is liable to pay reasonable damages as claimed by the complainant i.e. Rs. 14,804/- and also pay Rs.3,000/- towards the cost of litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. Opposite Party shall pay Rs. 14,804/- to the complainant and also shall pay Rs. 3,000/- towards the cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
In case of failure to pay the above mentioned amount within the stipulated time, the Opposite Party is directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the above said total amount from the date of failure till the date of payment.
The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the party free of charge and therefore the file be consigned to record.
(Page No.1 to 7 dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of MARCH- 2016.)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
(SMT. ASHA SHETTY) (SMT. LAVANYA M.RAI)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Mangalore. Mangalore.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 – Mr. Prakash Nadahalli – Complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1: The copy of the mails sent to and received from Goibibo. Com.
Ex C2: The copy of the e-ticket and endorsement given by Air India.
Ex C3: The copy of the bill for having paid the amount of
Rs. 12,200/- to Indigo.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite party:
Nil
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party:
Nil
Dated:31.03.2016. PRESIDENT
31.03.2016.
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. Opposite Party shall pay Rs. 14,804/- to the complainant and also shall pay Rs. 3,000/- towards the cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
In case of failure to pay the above mentioned amount within the stipulated time, the Opposite Party is directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the above said total amount from the date of failure till the date of payment.
The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the party free of charge and therefore the file be consigned to record.
(Page No.1 to 7 dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of MARCH- 2016.)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
(SMT. ASHA SHETTY) (SMT. LAVANYA M.RAI)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Mangalore. Mangalore.
