Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/471/2014

Mr.L.V.Srinivasan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Make My TRIP India Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Joseph Prabakar

03 Jun 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed : 03.11.2014

Date of Reservation      : 12.05.2022

Date of Order               : 03.06.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B JIJAA, M.L.,                                           : PRESIDENT

                      THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,           :  MEMBER  I 

                      THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,     : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.471 /2014

FRIDAY, THE 3^rd DAY OF JUNE 2022

Mr. L.V. Srinivasan,

No.1, Doraiswamy Road,

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.                                                            ... Complainant                              

 

..Vs..

The Manager,

Make my Trip India Private Limited,

Tower A, SP Infocity,

243, Udyog Vihar, Phase-1,

Gurgaon – 122016.                                                       ...  Opposite Party

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : M/s. Joseph Prabakar

Counsel for the Opposite Party       : M/s. Selvaraj

 

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Complainant we delivered the following:

 

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony caused to the Complainant along with cost.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

        The Complainant had purchased air tickets from the Opposite Party for his two daughters Ms.Sumetha Srinivasan and Ms. Supraja Srinivasan and for their friend Ms.Meghana Mungikar for the sector Indore – Mumbai – Cochin – Chennai for travel in May 2013, which was scheduled by jet connect on 20^th May 2013 while the travel leg from Cochin – Chennai was scheduled by Spice Jet on 27^th May 2013. The above booking was done through Opposite Party’s company website online, on 6^th Jan 2013 and the payment of Rs.26,370/- was made through his credit card. Further the Opposite Party had issued the booking ID NF.2203224129751 to the Complainant. When his daughters and their friend reached the Cochin airport on Monday the 27^th May 2013 to take their flight to Chennai, they found to their utter shock that the airline was not holding any booking for them and they were informed that the PNR reference of YWQETB for Spice Jet airlines for Cochin – Chennai sector provided by Make My Trip was invalid. All the three passengers were +2 students of CBSE stream and their results were declared on the morning of 27^th May 2013 and they had great compulsion to be in Chennai on 27^th evening. The young girls were panicking at the airport. The Complainant had to request his brother-in-law who is at Cochin to purchase the tickets for the three passengers by using his credit card. The cost of ticket for the three passengers was Rs.29,166/-. Ever since that date the Complainant has been following up with the Opposite Party organization either over phone or by mail to refund a sum of Rs.29,166/-and for compensation. Further, the Complainant visited the Opposite Party office in

person on 3^rd June 2013 to follow up on his claim. At last the amount of Rs.29,166/- was credited to his account on 10^th June 2013. However, no compensation was given. While so, the counsel of the Complainant sent a legal notice dated August 12, 2013 to the Opposite Party stating all the above facts and claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-. The Opposite Party vide their letter dated November 12, 2013, addressed to the counsel for the Complainant had categorically admitted that there was ‘certain technical glitch’ in the system. However, the Opposite Party stated that their liability would be limited to refund of the amount of ticket booked only. The Opposite Party refused the claim of compensation by the complainant. Categorical admission of deficiency in service by the Opposite Party then, the Opposite Party cannot refuse to pay compensation. The Opposite Party Company had issued the invalid PNR to the Complainant’s daughters and negligence in service which is unfair trade practice and against law. Moreover, the Opposite Party company had received the payment of Rs.26,370/- from the Complainant on 06.01.2013 itself, on contra, Opposite Party company did not purchase the tickets for the Complainant’s daughters which would clearly establish that Opposite Party  had utilized the amount in their business, thereby the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency of service. Hence the complaint.

3.    Written Version filed by the Opposite party in brief is follows:-  Though no specific allegations have been levelled against OP No.1, it is pertinent to take into consideration that even thereof this Hon’ble Forum does not have jurisdiction to entertain the present dispute qua OP No1. As per the Jurisdiction clause of the User Agreement, only the Courts of NCR Delhi have the Territorial Jurisdiction to entertain the dispute, if any, arising out of the bookings qua OP No.1. the Complainant has falsely alleged deficiency against OP No.1 despite the fact he has been made to understand time and again that the booking failure was due to a system error which is in no way attributable to OP No.1. The amounts spent by the Complainant in purchasing extra tickets has already been refunded to him as he has also admitted in his complaint. After refund for the additional amount of Rs.29,166/-  to the Complainant he raised a demand of Rs.6000/- for which he was asked to produce receipts. No such receipts were produced. Then after a passage of time the Complainant without any basis increased his demand considerably. In his own admission he had denied sharing the details of the expenditure. He once again rake up the matter in 2014 almost after a passage of one (1) year and increased his compensation first to Rs.90,000/- and then to Rs.5,00,000/-. He was then in 2014 offered a settlement offer to which he never got back to OP No.1. The refund of the entire ticket was provided to the Complainant instead of simply refunding the remainder of his original booking amount, also Complainant was not willing to provide any basis for claiming compensation. It is denied that there is any acceptance of deficiency on the part of OP No.1. It is stated that there was a system error in generation of the ticket and the same does not in any manner negligence in service or unfair trade practice or in any manner against the law. The amount that the Complainant had paid has in no manner been utilized by the complainant in anything else but the ticket of the Complainant’s daughter. The claim of compensation in tune of Rs.5,00,000/- is absolutely baseless and in no way substantiated.

4.      The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-8  were marked.   

Neither Proof Affidavit was filed nor document was marked on the side of Opposite Party.

5.     Points for Consideration:-

1. Whether this Commission has Jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

3. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

4. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

6.    Point No.1:-

        The preliminary objection raised by Opposite Party in their Written Version is that as per the terms and conditions of the User Agreement agreed between the Complainant and Opposite Party at the time of booking, the jurisdiction clause of the User Agreement stipulates that the Courts of       NCR, Delhi have the territorial Jurisdiction to entertain the disputes if any arising out of booking of tickets. The present complaint is to be dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial Jurisdiction. The Opposite Party has not chosen to file the alleged User Agreement agreed between the Complainant and Opposite Party. Even otherwise Jurisdiction clause in User Agreement which states that only courts of  NCR of Delhi, India have Jurisdiction will not preclude this Commission in entertaining this complaint.  

7.    Point No.2:-

        The undisputed facts are that the Complainant had booked flight on 06.01.2013 through the Opposite Parties Website vide booking I.D NF2203224129751 for his 2 daughter’s Sumetha Srinivasan, Supraja Srinivasan and their friend Ms. Megha Manikar to travel from Cochin to Chennai on 27.05.2013 by Spice Jet SG-3242, which is also evident from Ex.A-3 and Ex.A-4. On 27.05.2013 when the daughters of the Complainant and their fiend reached Cochin Airport to take their Flight to Chennai, they were informed that there was no bookings for their flight and the PNR No.YWQETB found in the e.ticket was invalid. The Complainant was made to  arrange for alternative tickets by himself for the 3 passengers. The defence taken by the Opposite Party in the reply notice dated 12.11.2013 and in the written version is that the air ticket booked by the Complainant could not be confirmed due to technical falut in the system, which is beyond their reasonable control and the system error cannot be acceptable to the Opposite Party.

        It is also undisputed that the cost of tickets for the 3 passengers amounting to Rs.26,166/- was refunded  to the Complainant on 10.06.2013. Though after repeated  follow ups as contended by the Complainant.

        It is pertinent to note that, the 3 passengers who were +2 students was to take flight on 27.05.2013 to reach Chennai, they were informed that the bookings were invalid, which situation could have necessarily panicked the young students. Ex.A-5 to Ex.A-8, the CBSE Certificates of the Complainants daughter would reveal the necessity of their presence in Chennai on 27.05.2013. Though it was alleged by the Opposite Party that the problem in the bookings of the Complainant was due to system error, when the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party to resolve the problem before the departure of flights the Opposite Party has not made any arrangements to re-book the tickets instead the Complainant had to arrange to purchase tickets for the 3 passengers. The Opposite Party has reimbursed the cost of the tickets purchased by the Complainant and mere reimbursement of ticket price would not relieve the Opposite Party from their liability as the Hon’ble Supreme court has held in Catena of Judgements that the word compensation under the Consumer Protection Act, includes each and every element of suffering by the Consumer at the hands of service provider which includes mental agony, harassment, physical discomfort, emotional sufferings, actual loss, expected loss and other injustice suffered by the consumer.

        Hence from the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered view that the Opposite Party had committed deficiency of service by not providing alternative booking to reach Chennai on 27.05.2013. Accordingly Point No.2 is answered in favour of the Complainant.

8.     Point No.3 and 4:-

As we have discussed and decided point No.2 as against the Opposite

Party, the Opposite Party is liable to pay compensation. The Complainant  is entitled for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) towards compensation for mental agony due to deficiency of service committed by the Opposite Party along with cost of Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only). Accordingly Point No.3 and 4 is answered in favour of the Complainant.

In the result the complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) towards compensation for mental agony due to deficiency of service committed by the Opposite Party along with cost of Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only). Accordingly, Point No.3 and 4 is answered in favour of the Complainant within 8 weeks from the date of this order failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of this order till the date of realisation.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on  3^rd day of June 2022.  

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                           PRESIDENT

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

Ex.A1	12.08.2013	Legal notice sent by the Counsel for the Complainant to the Opposite Party
Ex.A2	12.11.2013	Reply sent by the Opposite Party
Ex.A3	06.01.2013	Flight ticket booked by the Complainant through respondent website/app vide booking I.D.NF2203224129751 for travel date 27.05.2013 from Cochin to Chennai – Spicejet SG-3242 by three passengers.
Ex.A4	27.05.2013	Flight ticket (Booking Reference B382GS) for travel date 27.05.2013 from Cochin to Chennai – Spicejet SGG-3242 for three passengers.
Ex.A5	27.05.2013	CBSE Mark Sheet of the Complainant’s daughter Sumedha Srinivasan
Ex.A6	27.05.2013	CBSE pass Certificate of the complainant’sdaughter Sumedha Srinivasan
Ex.A7	27.05.2013	CBSE Mark Sheet of the Complainant’s daughter Supraja Srinivasan
Ex.A8	27.05.2013	CBSE pass Certificate of the Complainant’s daughter Supraja Srinivasan

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Party:-

 

NIL

 

 

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN                              T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                              B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                                                MEMBER I                              PRESIDENT