Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/183/2022

Atul Vij - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Director Make My Trip - Opp.Party(s)

A.K. Rai

02 Dec 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/183/2022
Date of Institution	:	10.02.2022
Date of Decision	:	02.12.2024

 

Atul Vij s/o late Sh.Satya Pal Vij, R/o Flat No.1121, Pushpac Complex, Ground Floor, Sector 49-B, Chandigarh

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1]      The Director, Make My Trip Head Office, Tower B, DLF Building No.5, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase II, Sector 2, Gurugram, Haryana 12002

          2nd Address: -

          Make Mytrip, Tulaja Bhawani Nagar, Kharadi, Pune Maharashtra 411014

 2]     Indigo Airlines, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Jhiurheri, Punjab

3]      Spice Jet Airlines, Spicejet Airlines (Airport Office), Industrial Area, Chandigarh, Phase 2, Near Civil Air Terminal, Chandigarh

4]      Air India Airline, SCO 162-164, Subcity Centre, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY

:

Sh.A.K.Rai, Adv. for complainant Mr.Kartik,Adv. for Sh.Nitin Bhasin, Adv. for OP No.1. OP NO.2 exparte Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv. for OP No.3 Ms.Suman, Adv. for OP No.4.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1.    The present consumer complaint has been filed by Sh.Atul Vij, complainant against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as  under :-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant contacted the OP No.1 for the booking of air tickets for the onward & return journey as detailed below:-

From	To	Airline	Dates of journey
Chandigarh	Jaipur	Indigo Airlines	30.12.2021
Jaipur	Udapiur	Spice Jet Airlines	01.01.2022
Udaipur	Chandigarh	Air India	05.01.2022

 

The complainant paid a total amount of Rs.83,500/- to OP No.1 – Make My Trip for the aforesaid air tickets.  However, due to the outbreak of Covid-19, the wife of the complainant Smt.Anshu Khanna and Smt.Suninana Khanna, sister-in-law of the complainant, both passengers were found positive on 28.12.2021 vide reports Ann.C-2 & C-3, as a result of which it was not possible for the complainant and his family members to travel on the said air tickets and immediately, the complainant requested the OP No.1 by sending emails to cancel the booking and refund the entire amount.  The complainant was asked to share the Test Report of the aforesaid passengers, which was accordingly sent by the complainant to OP No.1.  However, out of the total paid amount, the OPs had only refunded an amount of Rs.15,000/- out of the paid amount of Rs.83,500/-, which resulted in causing mental torture and harassment to the complainant. The OPs have not refunded the remaining amount to the complainant despite of the repeated requests and in this manner the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.

2. OPs No.1, 3 & 4 have resisted the consumer complaint and filed their separate written version.
3. In its written version the OP No.1 took preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action and jurisdiction.  However, it is admitted that the complainant had booked the aforesaid air tickets through answering OP.  It is further alleged that the complainant has only paid an amount of Rs.81,700/- and out of the said amount, the answering OP has processed the refund to the complainant to the tune of Rs.51,262/-, hence the complainant is not entitled for the refund as prayed for.  The answering Opposite party is merely a facilitator for the booking of the confirmed Air tickets on behalf of its customers with concerned service providers. It is alleged that as per User Agreement the complainant has agreed to check the destination of the services and products carefully before making the booking and has also agreed to comply with all terms and conditions. It is further alleged that as per User’s Agreement, refund will be processed as per airline fare rules and cancellation policy and the convenience fee paid to the MMT at the time of booking is a non-refundable. It is denied that due to any act of answering Opposite party, the complainant and his family had to face any mental agony or harassment. It is averred that once confirmed bookings have been communicated to the complainant, the obligation of the answering Opposite party towards the complainant is discharged. On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been re-asserted. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
4. OP No.2 was properly served and when OP No.2 did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, it was proceeded against ex-parte on 11.03.2024.
5. OP No.3 in its written version took preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action and concealment of facts. It is alleged that an amount of Rs.15,000/- being partial ticket amount has already been refunded by the answering OP to the complainant and the complainant has filed false complaint against the answering OP.  On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been re-asserted. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
6. In its written version, OP No.4 took preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action and concealment of facts. However, it is admitted that the complainant got positive but the answering OP cannot be blamed for that for the cancellation of air tickets and the complainant is trying to extract money from the answering OP in illegal manner.  On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been re-asserted. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
7. Despite grant of numerous opportunities, no rejoinder was filed by the complainant to rebut the stand of the OP.

2.    In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.

3.    We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments.

1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant had booked four air tickets through OP No.1 for the onward and return journey, as detailed below:-

From	To	Airline	Dates of journey
Chandigarh	Jaipur	Indigo Airlines	30.12.2021
Jaipur	Udapiur	Spice Jet Airlines	01.01.2022
Udaipur	Chandigarh	Air India	05.01.2022

 

and the OP No.1 accordingly got air tickets booked through OPs No.2 to 4 and due to Covid-19 Positive Reports of Smt.Anshu Khanna, wife of complainant and Smt.Suninana Khanna, sister-in-law of the complainant, the complainant sent request to the OP No.1 for cancellation of all air tickets and refund of the entire amount and the OP has only refunded an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant out of the an amount of Rs.83,500/-, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the OPs are unjustified in not refunding the entire ticket amount and the complainant is entitled for the refund as prayed for or if the OPs are justified in partly refunding the amount of the complainant and the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

(ii)   It is an admitted case of the parties that due to Covid-19 Positive Reports of two passengers out of four passengers i.e. namely Smt.Anshu Khanna, wife of the complainant and Smt.Suninana Khanna, sister-in-law of the complainant, as is also evident from Ann.C-2 & C-3, the complainant cancelled the booking of the air ticket.

(iii)  Even as per Government guidelines, the OPs were liable to refund full ticket amount to the complainant that too without levying any cancellation charges and   despite of the said fact the OPs have deducted certain amount and thereby refunded only partial amount to the complainant, the aforesaid act of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

(iv)  The OPs have utterly failed to explain as to on what account they have withheld the remaining ticket amount with them once there were strict guidelines by the Government to refund full ticket amount to the passengers during COVID period.  Thus, the OPs have illegally withheld the remaining ticket amount of the complainants against the guidelines of the Government and the said act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and they are liable to refund the remaining ticket amount to the complainant.

(v)   No doubt in its written version the OP No.1 has come with the defence that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part as it is only an intermediary to facilitate booking of the tickets and pricing of ticket and cancellation charges thereof is not in its control and thus it has no role to play in the dispute in hand, however, admittedly the tickets were booked by it thus, neither OP-1, being e-commerce entity nor OP-2, being airlines of the subject air-tickets, can escape from their liability, especially when both the OPs are duty bound to provide service to the consumer as provided under The Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 and the relevant portion of the same is reproduced below for ready reference :-

        4. Duties of e-commerce entities.  

        xxx                   xxx                   xxx

(10) Every e-commerce entity shall effect all payments towards accepted refund requests of the consumers as prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India or any other competent authority under any law for the time being in force, within a reasonable period of time, or as prescribed under applicable laws.

Hence the aforesaid act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice especially when they have failed to provide the service as agreed upon by them. Therefore, the instant consumer complaint deserves to be partly allowed.

(vi)  So far as the quantum of relief is concerned, though the complainant has alleged in the complaint that the OPs have only refunded an amount of Rs.15,000/- out of the total amount, but at the time of filing of the written arguments, the complainant has annexed certain documents i.e. Ann.C-X, C-Y & C-Z.  In Ann.C-Z, the complainant himself admitted that out of the total amount of Rs.81,706/-, the OPs have already refunded an amount of Rs.51,262/-, hence it is safe to hold that the complainant is entitled for the remaining amount of Rs.30,444/-, which shall be payable by the OPs to the complainant along with interest.  

4.           In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

1. to refund ₹30,444/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization;
2. to pay an amount of ₹ 15,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5.           This order be complied with by the OPs jointly & severally within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry penal interest @12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, instead of 9% [mentioned at Sr.No.(i)], till realization, over and above payment of ligation expenses.

6.           Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Sd/-

Announced 02.12.2024   om			[Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member