Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/01/2021

Mrs.Sridevichandrasekar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager M/s.Make my trip India Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S.G.Ramesh

18 Nov 2022

ORDER

Complaint presented on : 13.02.2020

Date of Disposal                : 18.11.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

CHENNAI(NORTH)

2^nd  Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-600 003.

 

PRESENT :  THIRU G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,                                       : PRESIDENT

                       TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.                         : MEMBER-I

                       THIRU V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A., B.L., PGDLA : MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.01/2021

 

DATED THIS DAY FRIDAY THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

 

SrideviChandrasekar,

No.11, Boxhornpad, 5741 WG,

Eindhovan Netherlan, (NR)

Permanent Address:34/21,

South Sivan Kovil Street,

Kodambakkam, Chennai-600 024.

                                                                                      ….  Complainant

 

…Vs…

 

1. The Branch Manager,

M/s.MakemyTrip India Pvt. Ltd.,

Door No.10, 1^st Floor, Khadar Nawaz Khan Road,

Opposite to Starbuck Coffee,

Chennai-600 006.

 

2. The Commercial Manager,

M/s. Jet Airways India Pvt. Ltd.,

Siroya Centre, Sahar Airport Road,

Ashok Nagar, Andheri East,

Left Premises,

Mumbai-400 099.

                                                                                       …..Opposite parties.

Counsel for Complainant                   : M/s.S.G.Ramesh and N.Pichaipillai.

 

 Counsel for opposite party                  : Ex-parte.

 

ORDER

THIRU G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,       : PRESIDENT

          This complaint is filed by the complainant against Opposite parties under section 35 of Consumer protection Act 2019 prays to direct the opposite party to refund the full air fare of Rs.1,11,722/- with interest and to pay an amount of Rs.50000/- towards mental agony cost for being negligent and delaying the refund and to pay Rs.5000/- towards litigation charges.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF :

The complainant submitted that he booked a ticket on 31.12.2018 for her parents for travel from Chennai to Amsterdam on 30.04.2019 and return journey on 27.07.2019 through 1^st opposite party, travel through the flights operated by the 2^nd opposite party and he has cancelled the flight ticket due to uncertainty in the flight schedule and it was confirmed by the 1^st opposite party on 13.04.2019.  The 1^st opposite party though has confirmed the receipt of cancellation has not made the refund nor it has not responded to the repeated phone calls, but only to make a reply in general on 10.07.2019 that all its customers refund claim were submitted the 2^nd opposite party and it is closely following the refund status. The complainant stated that the air fare of Rs.111722/- is to be refunded and the same the complainant claims as a compensation.

2.Point for consideration:-

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable before this commission on the ground of territorial jurisdiction?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed in the complaint. If so to what reliefs?

The complainant have filed proof affidavit and Ex.A1 and A2 were marked on his side.  The opposite parties were set exparte.

3.Point No.1:-

The complainant has contended that he booked a ticket on 31.12.2018 for her parents for travel from Chennai to Amsterdam on 30.04.2019 and return journey on 27.07.2019 through 1^st opposite party, travel through the flights operated by the 2^nd opposite party and he has cancelled the flight ticket due to uncertainity in the flight schedule and it was confirmed by the 1^st opposite party on 13.04.2019.  The 1^st opposite party though has confirmed the receipt of cancellation has not made the refund nor it has not responded to the repeated phone calls, but only to make a reply in general on 10.07.2019 that all its customers refund claim were submitted the 2^nd opposite party and it is closely following the refund status. The complainant stated that the air fare of Rs.111722/- is to be refunded.

4. On perusal of complaint it is found that the complainant is resident of Kodambakkam and the opposite parties were also having office which were located outside the territorial jurisdiction of this commission further no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this commission and as per Sec.34 (2) of CP Act 2019 since the complainant as well as opposite party were not residing or carrying on business within the jurisdiction of this commission and hence the complaint is order to be returned  for submitting before proper commission having territorial jurisdiction and the same is not maintainable before this commission. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

 

 

5.Point No. 2 :

Since it is found that the complaint is not maintainable before this commission it is not necessary to decide and give any findings on the merits of the complaint regarding whether the complainant is entitled for reliefs prayed in the complaint. Point 2 answered accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is ordered to be returned for submission before proper commission having territorial jurisdiction.  Time one month. No costs.

Dictated by the President to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 18^th  day of November 2022.

 

MEMBER I                           MEMBER II                     PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT

Ex. A1	20.06.2019	Guidance to claimants – IRP Jet Airways.
Ex. A2	27.06.2019	Business standard news w.r.t date of de-recognition by IATA.

 

MEMBER I                           MEMBER II                     PRESIDENT