Orissa

Cuttak

CC/90/2017

Meera Mishra - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director,Sipsa Holidays Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

S.S. Kashyap & associates

04 Nov 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.90/2017

 

1.        Mrs. Meera Mishra,

W/o: Late Justice Jayaprakash Mishra.

 

2.        Sanjibani Mishra,

D/o: Late Justice Jayaprakash Mishra

 

Plot No.-3D,1070,Sector-10,

C.D.A,Dist:Cuttack.                                                            ... Complainants.

 

          Vrs.

 

1.       The Managing Director,Sipsa Holidays Pvt. Ltd.,

Near Krishna Arcade,B.K.Road,Dolamundai,

                  Dist:Cuttack-753004

     

2.       Inter globe Aviation Limited,(INDIGO),

Global Business Park,Gurgaon,

                 Haryana,India.                                                        …Opp.Parties

 

 

Present:         Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

 

Date of filing:    21.07.2017

Date of Order:  04.11.2023

 

For the complainants:                       Mr. S.S.Kashyap,Adv . & Associates.

For the O.Ps No.1 :                 None.

For the O.P No.2:                  Mr. T.Mishra, Adv . & Associates

                 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                  

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that on 9.11.2016 the complainant Sanjibani Mishra had called upon O.P no.1, travel agency over telephone in order to book one air ticket for herself on 23.12.16 thereby enabling her to proceed from Bhubaneswar Airport to Bangalore Airport and also had told the said O.P for booking of two return air-tickets from Bangalore to Bhubaneswar on 30.12.2016 for herself and complainant no.1.   One Tamasha Gochayat introduced herself over phone to be the employee of O.P no.1 who had assured on behalf of O.P no.1 to confirm the bookings as desired by complainant no.2.  On 11.11.16, the complainant no.2 was intimated over phone by the said Tamasha Gochayat that the tickets have been booked.  On 14.11.16 the said Tamasha Gochayat alongwith another person had gone to the house of complainants where they had handed over the air tickets and had collected the entire amount for those air tickets.  Complainant no.2 proceeded through the said air ticket from Bhubaneswar to Bangalore on 23.12.16 where she stayed upto 30.12.2016.  As the return journey of the complainants was scheduled at 9.20 P.M through Indigo flight on 30.12.2016m the said evening, the complainants reached Bangalore Airport at about 7.45 P.M in order to check-in for the flight bearing No.6E 3369 but to their dismay, they could know that the said air tickets those which were booked by the O.P no.1 for the complainants, were cancelled long back.  When the complainants tried to contact O.P no.1 through his mobile phone no.9090909205 it was not reachable then.  The complainants could know from the Customer Care of Indigo Airlines that their air tickets with booking reference no.FYHEYZ in flight no.6E 3369 on 30.12.16 which was booked on 11.11.16 was cancelled on 12.11.16 due to non-payment of the required charges by the booking agency.  The complainants thus allege that the said fact was never intimated to them by either of the O.Ps which according to them is intentional harassment to them by the O.Ps.  Inspite of several efforts in the night of 30.12.16 the complainants were unable to contact the O.Ps for which having no other way out they had to remain at the Airport itself at Bangalore since because they were two ladies and their place of stay was near about 42 Kms away from the Bangalore Airport.  It is alleged by the complainants that though the employee of O.P no.1 Tamasha Gochayat had collected the charges for two air tickets from the complainants on 14.11.16, she had not disclosed them about cancellation of their air tickets as made on 12.11.16.  The O.Ps have also not refunded the air ticket fares to the complainants for which the complainants have come up with their case seeking refund of the said two air ticket fares as paid by them for 30.12.16 to the tune of Rs.11,180/- together with compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the O.Ps towards their mental agony and harassment.  They have also prayed for cost of their litigation to the tune of Rs.35,000/- from the O.Ps.

          The complainants have annexed copies of certain documents alongwith their complaint petition in order to prove their case.

2.       Having not contested this case, O.P no.1 has been set exparte vide order dt.6.12.2017.  However, O.P no.2 has contested this case and has filed his written version.   As per the written version of O.P no.2, the case of the complainant is not maintainable which is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed.   As per the official data base. O.P no.2 could know that there were two air tickets booked in the names of the two complainants of this case on 11.11.16 at about 4.04 P.M by O.P no.1 which were meant for enabling them to travel from Bangalore to Bhubaneswar through Indigo flight bearing No.6E 3369 on 30.12.2016.  It is further alleged that since because no payment was received by O.P no.1 from the complainants, the said booking was terminated and the reference no. PNR FYHEYZ were on hold for the said two air tickets for 24 hours upto 10.04 P.M of 12.11.16.  The O.P no.2 has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court as held in the case of M/s. Inter Globe Aviation Ltd. Vs. N.Satchidanad (2011) 7 SCC 463 wherein it is held “3.1. Placing the conditions of carriage of the website and referring to the same in the e-ticket and making copies of conditions of carriage available at the Airport counters for inspection is sufficient notice in regard to the terms and conditions of the carriage and will bind the parties.”  Thus, the tickets were only kept on hold upto 10.04 P.M of 12.11.16 which were cancelled due to non-receipt of payment from the complainants.  Accordingly, it is prayed through the written version of O.P no.2 to dismiss the complaint petition as filed by the complainants.

          Together with the written version the O.P no. 2 has filed copies of several documents in order to support his stand.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.Ps no. 2, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainants is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps ?

iii.        Whether the complainants are entitled to the reliefs as claimed by them?

Issue no.ii.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue is taken up  first for consideration here in this case.

After perusing the complaint petition, the written version of O.P no.2, the written notes of submissions filed from either sides, and also after perusing copies of documents as filed from either sides in this case, it is noticed that complainant no.2 had proceeded to Bangalore Airport from Bhubaneswar Airport on 23.12.16 by virtue of the air ticket as booked for her by O.P no.1.  She was to return back from Bangalore on 30.12.16 with her mother for which she had booked two air tickets enabling herself and her mother to return through flight No.6E 3369 in Indigo flight which according to her were booked by O.P no.1.  She has mentioned in her complaint petition that one Tamasha Gochayat had introduced herself to be the employee of O.P no.1 who had telephonically confirmed the booking of the to and fro air tickets on 11.11.16 and on 14.11.16 the said Tamasha Gochayat alongwith another person had come to the house of the complainants where they had handed over the air tickets and had collected the entire amount for the said air tickets.  Copy of the return journey air tickets of both the complainants from Bangalore to Bhubaneswar on 30.12.16 has also been filed by the complainants alongwith their complaint petition.  The same when perused, it is noticed that O.P no.1 had infact booked the said two air tickets for the complainants in order to enable them to have their air journey on 30.12.16 from Bangalore to Bhubaneswar through Indigo flight No.6E 3369.  The allegation of the complainants is that the said two air tickets were cancelled on 12.11.16 due to non-payment of required charges by the booking agency.  The said booking agency who is O.P no.1 in this case has not contested this case.  O.P no.2 has stated in the written version that since because the complainants could not pay the air fare for the tickets those which were kept on hold for them, being booked on 11.11.16 were cancelled on 12.11.16 i.e., after 24 hours after being booked.

As per the C.P.Act,2019, a “Consumer” is a person who hires or avails any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the mentioned person”.

Keeping such definition of the “Consumer” in mind as per the C.P.Act,2019, while analysing the case in hand and probing into the available evidence on record, it is noticed that infact it is admitted by the complainants that O.P.no.1 had booked three air tickets for them out of which one air ticket was meant for the complainant no.1 thereby enabling her to return from Bhubaneswar to Bangalore on 23.12.16 and the other two air tickets were meant for both the complainants in order to enable them to return from Bangalore to Bhubaneswar in Indigo flight bearing No.6E 3369.  It is alleged by the O.P no.2 that since because no payment was received for or on behalf of the complainants, the air tickets those which were kept on hold were cancelled on 12.11.16 i.e, after expiry of 24 hours from the booking.  Be that as it may, the complainants through their complain petition have stated to have entrusted O.P no.1 to book the air tickets by conveying their desire telephonically.  It is the contention of the complainants that one Tamasha Gochayat introduced herself to be an employee of O.P no.1 over telephone and had assured for the booking of the air tickets as desired by the complainants.  She had also assured the complainant no.2 that those tickets which are booked for them would be handed over at the residence of the complainants when the money to that effect would be collected also.  This statement of the complainants is not substantiated amply here in this case.  There is also no documentary evidence produced by the complainants in order to apprise this Commission that infact the consideration amount for the two air tickets were promised to be paid by them after receiving the air tickets or if the O.P no.1 or his employee had agreed for any such promise or system of any such deferred system of payment.  Moreso, there is also no scrap of document in order to apprise this Commission that infact the said Tamasha Gochayat alongwith another had visited their house where she had delivered the air tickets and if she had collected the consideration amount there.  It is for the said reason, this Commission cannot come to a conclusion that infact there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps as alleged against them here in this case since because the complainants could not substantiate their stand as taken by them in order to implicate both the O.Ps to be deficient in their service.  Accordingly, this issue is answered.

Issues No.i &  iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainants cannot be said to be maintainable and the complainants are thus not entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by them.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                              ORDER

Case is dismissed on contest against the O.P no.2 & exparte against O.P no.1 and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 4^th day of November,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.                                                                                                                

                                                                                              Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                     President

                                                                                               Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                          Member