The present complaint has been filed by the complainant for the following relief:
(1) To direct the Opposite Parties to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.10,200/- being the expenses incurred by the complainant in obtaining Chinese Visa.
(2) To direct the Opposite Parties to pay the Complainant a sum of Rs.5000/- being the expenses incurred by the complainant in re-schedulement charges for rescheduling his flight from Kolkatta to Chennai from 19.10.2021 to 12.10.2014.
(3) To direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for the mental harassment, agony and stress caused to the complainant due to the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service of the Opposite party.
(4) To direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as cost and litigation expenses to the complainant towards this complaint.
2. Following are the averments narrated in the complaint:
Gist of the complainant’s case is that he was working as an Assistant Professor, in the Department of Civil Engineering, B.S.Abdul Rahman University, Vandalur, Chennai. During the relevant point of time, the European Space Agency and Ministry of Science and Technology of China had proposed to conduct a combined Advanced Training Programme known as 2014 ESA-MOST Dragon Cooperation Advanced Training Course on Land and Water Remote Sensing from 13.10.2014 to 18.10.2014, at Jiangxi Normal University, China. After knowing the same, the complainant wanted to participate in the said programme and he also made arrangement for getting Visa by spending Rs.10,200/-. After getting permission from his employer, he approached the second Opposite Party for taking tickets in Airlines and also for arranging air tickets. The complainant came to know about the second Opposite Party through internet and he was impressed by the offers and advertisements made by the second Opposite party. Later, he found out the address of the first Opposite Party, who is the Branch Office of the second Opposite Party in Puducherry. On 20.09.2014, he contacted the first Opposite Party and enquired about the purchase of air-tickets from Chennai to China. Ultimately, the complainant was advised by the opposite parties to book ticket from Chennai to Kolkata and secondly from Kolkata to Nanchang (China) and thirdly from Nanchang (China) to Kunming (China). Believing the words of the opposite parties, on 23.09.2014, he had purchased an Air-ticket from Chennai to Kolkata for the journey on 11.10.2014 and another ticket from Kolkata to Chennai for the return journey on 19.10.2014, for Rs.16,000/-. He had also purchased a ticket from Kolkata to Nanchang (China) for the journey on 12.10.2014 and another ticket from Nanchang(China) to Kunming(China) for the journey on 12.10.2014, another ticket from Kunming(China) to Nanchang(China) for the return journey on 18.10.2014. Also, he had purchased another ticket for travel from Nanchang(China) to Kolkata for the return journey on 18.10.2014, for Rs.34,000/-.
3. Afterwards, on 11.10.2014 around 05.15 hours, he had boarded the Indigo Flight from Chennai Airport and reached Kolkata at 08.30 hours. Wherein, after entering into the Airport, he was informed that there was no ticket booked in his name. On verification through customer care, the second opposite party did not give fruitful information in respect of booking of tickets. Ultimately, the complainant could not travel in the flight from Kolkata to Nanchang (China). Therefore, he re-scheduled the programme from 19.10.2014 to 12.10.2014 after paying Rs.5000/- towards re-schedulement charges and returned to Chennai.
4. On 12.10.2014 around 05.56 p.m, the second opposite party issued an email to the complainant stating that the second opposite party apologize for the inconvenience caused to the complainant and promise to revert back in 72 hours. In this regard, the complainant had sent emails to the second opposite party on 16.10.2014, 19.10.2014 and 23.10.2014, wherein he asked for explanation and refund of the air-ticket charges.
5. On the other hand, on 11.11.2014, the second opposite party had issued e-mail to the complainant seeking apology for the inconvenience caused to the complainant. In the same manner, on 20.12.2014 the second opposite party issued another apology letter.
6. Having regard to the refund of amount, on 21.10.2014, the second opposite party issued email to the complainant stating that the second opposite party have refunded Rs.34,572/- being the cost of the ticket to the bank account of the complainant. But, the second opposite party has not offered any explanation as to why tickets were cancelled. Booked tickets were cancelled by the opposite parties without giving any information to the complainant. Therefore, on 04.02.2015 the complainant had issued a legal notice to the first and second opposite parties asking to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.10,200/- being the expenses incurred by the complainant in obtaining Chinese Visa and a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for the gross deficiency in service, severe mental agony and loss of professional prospects sustained by the complainant. The said notice was received by the first opposite party on 05.02.2015 but the first opposite party neither came to settle the issues not to issue reply notice. The second opposite party had also received the notice but did not send any reply for the notice sent by the complainant. Therefore, it would be necessary to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.20,80,200/- towards various claims as stated above.
7. Refuting the claim made by the complainant, the second opposite party filed the reply statement, wherein he had stated as follows:
(1) The complaint is not maintainable.
(2) After paying Rs.34000/-, the complainant booked flight tickets for one person to travel for Nanchang (China)- Kunming Secotr. The second opposite party was booking agent on behalf of the third party service provider like Airline, Hotels etc. All the services provided are on an “as is” and as “available basis”. Confirmation is always subject to availability with the respective service provider.
(3) In the present case soon after the complainant made his bookings, a confirmation was sent to complainant with booking ID. However, at the back end the bookings could not be confirmed with the Airlines due to non-availability of seats at that moment. The same was informed to the complainant on 25.09.2014 i.e. the next day after the booking . Several calls were made but the complainant did not pick up. Hence he was informed about the cancellation of his bookings and was assured full refund on 25.09.2014 at 17.14 hours.
(4) As promised, the refund of Rs.34,072/- was processed to the Complainant. In the user agreement it was stated that the jurisdiction is restricted to Delhi Courts alone. Therefore, the opposite party is no way responsible for alleged deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant. Accordingly, the opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint.
8. After filing the complaint, this Commission examined the complainant on proof affidavit as CW.1 and marked 27 documents as Exs.C1 to C27. On the other hand, one Pradeep Kumar working as Senior Executive in the second opposite party company was examined as RW.1 and marked two documents as Exs.R1 and R2.
9. In the proof affidavit filed by the complainant, he has narrated the entire things as stated in the complaint before this Commission.
10. In this regard, the counsel appearing for the complainant made his submission that the complaint has been proved his case through Exs.C1 to C24. The specific averments made by the complainant’s counsel is that in the reply notice sent by the opposite party, he admitted the deficiency in service and negligence and about the unfair trade practice committed by him and therefore OP.1 and OP.2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation as prayed in the complaint.
11. On the other hand, though one witness was examined on the side of the second opposite party as RW.1, later for making their submissions nobody had entered appearance on behalf of the opposite parties. Therefore, the opposite parties’ side argument was suo moto closed by this court.
12. In this occasion, on going through the relevant documents which were all filed on behalf of either side, it is not in dispute that the complainant was working as professor in a reputed Institution. According to the complainant, he reserved ticket from Kolkata to Kunming for dates from 12.10.2014 to 18.10.2014, in this regard Exs.C1 to C3 marked. The opposite party issued confirmation letter stating that the tickets booked by the complainant was confirmed.
13. In the meantime, vide letter dated 25.09.2014 (Ex.C6) Visa has also been provided (Ex.C7) to the complainant for visiting China. In the said situation, on the side of the Opposite party there was no denial as to the booking of tickets. Infact, in the proof affidavit filed by the opposite party in para 5, the opposite party paid an amount of Rs.34,0000/- towards the costs of the ticket and for the travel arrangement. In this occasion, t he only defence taken by the opposite party is that “he is booking agent” on behalf of third party service provider like Airlines and Hotels, etc. Assuming that he is booking agent alone, after knowing the same, he could not issue any confirmation ticket to the travelers who intent to travel from one place to another.
14. Here, it is a case, Exs.C1 to C3 will prove the fact the second opposite party issued confirmation of bookings for the travel from Kolkata to China. Also, he received Rs.31,000/- towards the cost of ticket. It shows that the complainant is a consumer under section 2(5)&(7) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and also the opposite party comes under the category of Establishment under section 2(k) of said Act.
15. While at the time of giving evidence as CW.1, the complainant has produced four letters as Exs.C11, C15, C16 and C17 said to have been issued by second opposite party and in respect of those documents, opposite parties have not raised any objection. Now on going through those documents, it is apparent that the opposite parties sought apology for the inconvenience caused to the complainant. Moreover, vide Ex.C21, he returned the cost of the tickets to the complainant. It shows, only after accepting the negligence committed by them, the second opposite party sought apology from the complainant. It is not in dispute that due to non-attending of seminar at China, the complainant suffered mental agony and therefore, act committed by the opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice comes within the provision of Sec.2(47) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Therefore, it is necessary to compensate the complainant by means of paying money.
16. It is a specific case of the opposite party that except the courts at Delhi, no other court is having jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Though the opposite party has taken the above defence, in order to substantiate the same, he has not come forward to produce the agreement entered between the complainant and the opposite party. On the other hand, in the present complaint, in respect of jurisdiction, the complainant has stated in his complaint that he has purchased air-tickets through the first opposite party, which was running business at Puducherry as agent of the second opposite party. Therefore, it is clear that the first opposite party was having office within the jurisdiction of this Commission. Hence this Commission is entitled to try this complaint and therefore, the defence taken by the opposite party in respect of jurisdiction cannot be entertained. Accordingly, in the light of the discussions cited supra, the complaint is allowed with costs and this Commission orders as follows:
(1) The Opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,200/- to the complainant towards the expenses incurred in obtaining the China Visa.
(2) The Opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- to the complainant, being the expenses incurred by the complainant re-schedulement charges for rescheduling his flight from Kolkatta to Chennai from 19.10.2014 to 12.10.2014.
(3) The Opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for the mental harassment, agony and stress caused to the complainant due to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service alongwith costs of Rs.5000/-.
If the opposite parties failed to pay the above said amount within the period of three months from today, total awarded amount carries interest at the rate of 12% per annum from today to till realisation.
Dated this the 15th day of July 2022.

LIST OF COMPLAINANT'S WITNESSES:
CW1 25.02.2016 Mohamed Shanavaz
LIST OF OPPOSITE PARTYS' WITNESSES:
RW1 25.01.2018 K.Pradeep Kumar
LIST OF COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBITS:
Ex.C1     24.09.2014    Coy of the Reservation Confirmation Letter issued by the opposite parties to the complainant.
Ex.C2     24.09.2014    Copy of the ticket confirmation letter mail issued by the opposite parties to the complainant.
Ex.C3     24.09.2014    Copy of the ticket confirmation letter mail issued by the opposite parties to the complainant.
Ex.C4     25.09.2014   10.10.2014   Copy of receipts issued by Vaigai Wings Pvt. Ltd., to the complainant for the Visa Charges.
Ex.C5     25.09.2014    Copy of the letter issued by Jiangxi Normal University, Nanchang, China to the Visa Officer, Chinese Embassy, New Delhi.
Ex.C6     08.10.2014    Copy of the Chinese Visa issued to the complainant.
Ex.C7     23.09.2014 To 22.10.2014      Copy of statement of accounts issued by Citi Bank pertaining to the Bank Account of the complainant.
Ex.C8     05.10.2014     Copy of the E-ticket issued by the opposite parties to the complainant.
Ex.C9     11.10.2014     Copy of the air-ticket issued by Indigo Airlines to the complainant.
Ex.C10   12.10.2014     Copy of the air-ticket issued by Indigo Airlines to the complainant
Ex.C11   12.10.2014     Copy of email issued by the opposite parties to the complainant.
Ex.C12   13.10.2014     Copy of the email issued by Jiangxi Normal University, Nanchang, China to the complainant.
Ex.C13   13.10.2014     Copy of email issued by the complainant to the Jiangxi Normal University, Nanchang, China.
Ex.C14   15.10.2014     Copy of the email issued by the opposite parties to the complainant.
Ex.C15   16.10.2014     Copy of the email issued by the complainant to the opposite parties.
Ex.C16   11.11.2014     Copy of the email issued by the opposite parties to the complainant.
Ex.C17   20.12.2014     Copy of the email issued by the opposite parties to the complainant.
Ex.C18   21.12.2014     Copy of the email issued by the opposite parties to the complainant.
Ex.C19   22.12.2014     Copy of the email issued by the complainant to the opposite parties.
Ex.C20   22.12.2014     Copy of cancellation confirmation email issued by the opposite parties to the complainant.
Ex.C21   23.12.2014     Copy of the statement of accounts issued by Citi Bank pertaining to the Bank account of the complainant.
Ex.C22   28.12.2014     Copy of Refund confirmation email issued by the opposite parties to the complainant.
Ex.C23   30.12.2014     Copy of the email issued by the opposite parties to the complainant.
Ex.C24   31.12.2014     Copy of the email issued by the opposite parties to the complainant.
Ex.C25   04.02.2015     Copy of the legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties.
Ex.C26   05.02.2015     Copy of the postal acknowledgment card signed by the first opposite party.
Ex.C27   31.03.2015     Copy of the postal acknowledgment card signed by the second opposite party.

LIST OF OPPOSITE PARTIES’ EXHIBITS:
Ex.R1     02.03.2017     Board resolution and the authority letter.
Ex.R2     –                     User Agreement.