Mrs.Sridevichandrasekar filed a consumer case on 18 Nov 2022 against The Branch Manager M/s.Make my trip India Pvt Ltd in the North Chennai Consumer Court. The case no is CC/01/2021 and the judgment uploaded on 27 Dec 2022.
Complaint presented on : 13.02.2020
Date of Disposal : 18.11.2022
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
CHENNAI(NORTH)
2nd 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 18TH 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, 1st 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 1st opposite party, travel through the flights operated by the 2nd opposite party and he has cancelled the flight ticket due to uncertainty in the flight schedule and it was confirmed by the 1st opposite party on 13.04.2019. The 1st 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 2nd 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:-
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 1st opposite party, travel through the flights operated by the 2nd opposite party and he has cancelled the flight ticket due to uncertainity in the flight schedule and it was confirmed by the 1st opposite party on 13.04.2019. The 1st 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 2nd 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 18th 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
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.