Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/677/2019

Mr. Harbhajan Singh Poonia - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, M/s Make My Trip India Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Inderpal Singh Bhinder Adv.

15 Mar 2023

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	677 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	25.07.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	15.03.2023

 

 

 

 

 

Harbhajan Singh Poonia son of Sh.Mukhtiar Singh, resident of House No.1521, Phase-3B2, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) Punjab.

 

            …..Complainant

 

Versus

1]  The Managing Director, M/s Make My Trip India Private Limited, DLF Building No.5, Tower B, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase 2, Sector 25, Gurugram, Haryana 122002

        2^nd Address:-

M/s Make My Trip India Private Limited, through its Authorized Signatory/ Managing Directors having Branch Office at S.C.O. No.169-170, Madhya Marg, Sector   8-C, Chandigarh 160008.

 

2]  M/s China Southern Airlines Co. Ltd., through its Authorized Signatory/Managing Director having Branch Office at 12^th Floor, Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 110001

    ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER 

                MR.B.M.SHARMA                 MEMBER

 

                               

Argued by  : Sh.Vipin Kumar Sharma, Counsel of complainant

              OP No.1, 2 & 5 exparte

   Sh.M.S.Rana, Counsel of OP NO.3.

   Sh.Pardeep Sharma, Counsel of OP No.5

             

PER B. M. SHARMA, MEMBER

        The case of the complainants precisely is that they have purchased two air-tickets of OP No.2 Airlines, through OP NO.1 Online, on 25.12.2018 for onwards journey on 9.3.20219 from Delhi to Auckland (New Zealand) and return journey on 22.3.2019 from Auckland (New Zealand) to Delhi.  The complainants paid an amount of Rs.86,776/- for said air-tickets.  It is stated that during the booking process, the complainant mentioned the last name/surname in his and his wife’s ticket because it was mandatory in booking process.  The e-tickets were issued as Harbhajan Singh Poonia and Harjinder Kaur Poonia (Ann.C-1).

        It is submitted that when the complainants reached Delhi Airport on 8.3.2019 to take their flight and showed their air-tickets, they were denied the boarding by OP NO.2 Airlines on the ground that the last name/surname of complainant’s wife i.e. Poonia is not mentioned in her Passport.  It is also submitted that due to mentioning of Surname (Poonia) in the air-tickets of Harjinder Kaur Poonia, wife of complainant, the OP No.2 did not allow them to travel and gave direction to get it corrected/edited that too when only 2/3 hours were left to depart the flight. It is stated that the complainants shown valid passports and other identity proof to OP NO.2 Airline to show their identity as well as Surname as Poonia mentioned in the passport of complainant to convince & correlate with his wife’s passport in which husband’s name is mentioned with Surname Poonia. It is pleaded that except the Surname everything was ok in the e-tickets.  It is also pleaded that the complainants made several requests the OP No.2 Airlines to edit or amend the e-ticket at their end, but they instead rejected their request and denied the boarding. It is further pleaded that even OP No.1 through whom the tickets were booked did not help them to correct the e-tickets. Having no option, the complainants had to purchase new tickets for an amount of Rs.2,09,604/- on 9.3.2019 to reach on time (Ann.C-3).  Thereafter, the complainant agitated the matter with OPs NO.1 & 2 by sending emails followed by legal notice which they replied by denying their liability.  It is submitted that after cancelling the complainant’s tickers by OP No.1, without their consent, refund of Rs.22,805/- only was made against the total payment of Rs.86,776/- (Ann.C-7). Alleging the said act & conduct of OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, hence this complaint has been preferred.   

 

        The Opposite Party No.1 (Makemy Trip) has filed written statement and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that in order to facilitate with the filling of the details for the ticket, the website & App of answering OP clearly mention that the names should only be submitted as per names provided in their respective Passports.  It is stated that the complainants admitted in the complaint that the said discrepancy occurred due to his own fault in submission of details, so the answering OP cannot be made liable for such deficient act (Ann.R-3). It is submitted that once the confirmed tickets is booked by the intended traveler and tickets of the same are shared with intended traveler, the answering OP is discharged from its obligations qua the said bookings.  It is also submitted that in case of any request for cancellation and rescheduling of tickets or any bookings by the intended traveler, the same shall be forwarded to concerned airlines, who refund or reschedule the tickets or bookings in lieu of charges duly agreed upon at the time of making the bookings.  It is pleaded that as per DGCA Guidelines dated 1.8.2016, the Airlines is directed to provide a ‘Lock-in-Option’ for 24 hours (after booking ticket) cancelling or amending the ticket without additional charges, whereas in the present case, the complainants requested the answering OP to amend the details in the tickets only 2-3 hours prior to the departure of the flight, so it cannot be held liable for the same.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying other allegations, the OP NO.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

        The Opposite Party No.2 – M/s China Southern Airlines, has also filed written statement and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the complainant booked the e-ticket by himself mentioning the surname of his wife as Poonia while booking the ticket with OP No.1 as admitted by him in his complaint and OP NO.2 issued the tickets as per the details provided by OP No.1 which was further provided by the complainant himself. It is stated that OP No.2 cannot issue a ticket on its own when the same are being booked through the Online portal of OP No.1.  It is submitted that if the name on flight ticket does not exactly match in accordance with the passport, the Visa Immigration Department will not allow the passenger to board the flight. It is pleaded that a person with a different name cannot travel on a particular ticket with a particular name as it can end up being a major security issue for all concerned. It is also pleaded that answering OP No.2 Airlines has nothing to do with the dispute in hand and it only followed the prescribed procedure laid down by Govt. of India and rules of Civil Aviation (Ann.R-2/1 & R-2/2).  It is submitted that airline does not have any power to amend the name on the spot as this is a serious security lapse. Denying other allegations, the OP No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]      Complainant filed replication controverting the stand of OPs as in their reply.

 

4]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]      We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record including written arguments.

 

6]      The main grouse of the complainant is that though he & his wife were having confirmed air-tickets of OP No.2 airlines for 9.3.2019 for the route Delhi to Auckland (New Zealand), booked by him through OP NO.2 portal, but on arrival at the airport on that day, the OP NO.2 Airlines denied them boarding on the ground that the name of complainant’s wife (Hajinder Kaur Poonia) as mentioned in the air-tickets is not mentioned in her Passport. In other words, the surname i.e. Poonia of complainant’s wife was not mentioned in her Passport.

 

7]      The record reveals that it is an admitted case of the complainant that he, while making booking of the air-tickets in question by availing Online Services of OP No.1, has himself mentioned/entered the last name/surname in his and his wife’s air-ticket. Therefore, it is clear that whatever names have been entered in the air-tickets that were mentioned as per the instructions/entries made by complainant himself and OPs has no role in it.  It is also an admitted case of the complainant that the name of his wife in her passport was mentioned as ‘Harjinder Kaur’ whereas in the air-tickets it was mentioned as ‘Harjinder Kaur Poonia’, which means that both documents are not matching with each other in respect of her name/identity.  Here we find merit in the stand of OP No.2 that a person with a different name cannot travel on a particular ticket with a particular name as it can end up being a major security issue for all concerned.  Thus, it is clear that the fault actually lies on the part of complainant and not on the part of OPs and hence no deficiency in service is made out against the OPs.

 

8]      Taking into consideration the above discussion & findings, we are of the opinion that no case of deficiency in service is made out against the OPs. Therefore, the present complaint stands dismissed.  No order as to costs.

         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

Announced

15^th March, 2023                                                                     Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER