DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 90 of 2019

 

 

Sri Pritam Das,

S/O.Sri Pradip Das,

Resident of Mahadev Tilla,

P.S.-Khowai, P.O.-Khowai,

Dist.-West Tripura, Pin No.799201….........….....................................Complainant.

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

1. The Office-in-Charge,

Ticket New Team,

Rupasi Cinema Hall,

M.L. Plaza, Post Office Chowmohani,

Agartala, West Tripura,

Pin-799001. 

 

2. TICKET NEW,

Having its head office at -New No.-81,

Old No.-130, First floor, Sree Teja Tower,

Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai,

Chennai, Tamil Nadu- 600029..................................................... Opposite Parties.

 

 

     __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Rajat Deb Choudhuary,

  Advocate. 

For the O.P. No.1 : None appeared. 

 

For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Saikat Rahman,

   Advocate. 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : 28/04/2021.

J U D G M E N T

          The Complainant Sri Pritam Das, set the law in motion by presenting the complaint petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  complaining negligence & deficiency of service by the O.Ps. 

The Complainant's case, in brief, is that the Complainant booked two movie tickets for Rs.335.40 only for watching movie which was scheduled to be shown on 13th March, 2019, at Rupasi Cinema Hall, Agartala. Accordingly, the Complainant reached at Rupasi Cinema Hall just before starting the show and found it was cancelled and as a result the Complainant again booked two tickets for watching the said movie and spent further an amount of Rs.300/- only. Thereafter, the O.P. No.1 assured the Complainant that the price of tickets will be refunded due to cancellation of said movie but the O.P. No.1 did not refund the said amount to the Complainant till today. While the Complainant several times requested to the O.P. No.1 to refund the amount but the O.P. No.1 again and again assured the Complainant that the amount will be credited within few days. Unfortunately, the said amount has not been credited in the bank account of the Complainant till today. Thereafter, on 12th June, 2019 the Complainant again informed the matter to the O.P. No.1 through e-mail and accordingly the O.P. No.1 asked to the Complainant to forward the bank statement. The Complainant visited personally to the Rupasi Cinema Hall to enquire the matter in several occasions, but the O.P. No.1 assured again and again to the Complainant that the refund will be made very shortly. The Complainant finding no other alternative, but to approach  before the Ld. Forum for redress. 

So, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the conduct of the O.Ps.,  the Complainant alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice has filed the instant complaint before this Commission claiming Rs.50,000/-(Fifty thousand) as deficiency of service and as compensation for causing mental agony, trauma and harassment  and also cost of litigation from the O.Ps.  

Hence this case. 

 

 

2. On admission of the complaint notices were issued upon the O.Ps. The O.P. No.1 did not turn up and it was ordered to proceed ex-pare against the O.P. No.1 vide order dated 02/01/2020. On the other hand the O.P. No.2 contested the case by filing written versions. In the written versions the O.P. No.2 submitted para-wise reply to the complaint in seritem. In written reply the O.P. No.2 stated that they are doing business of providing platform for online sale of cinema tickets under the brand name “Ticket New”. It is also stated that the O.P. No.2 acted only as intermediary as defined under Section 2(w) of the Information Technology Act,2000 and is exempted by virtue of “Safe Harbor” Clause enshrined under Section 79 of IT Act 2000 from liability for third party information, data and communication link made available or hosted by it. 

        At Para-4 of the written reply O.P. No.2 stated that the O.P. No.1 is mainly responsible for refund of the price of the ticket in the event of any cancellation of movie show and the O.P. No.2 is not liable for any cancellation and the Complainant also did not sick any relief from the O.P. No.2 and the O.P. No.2 was added as a performa party.  

           At Para-6 of reply of the O.P. No.2 against stated that refund from  the O.P. No.2 was initiated on 13/03/2019 itself and was settled on 14/03/2019 there was no dues pending with the O.P. No.2. Actually the O.P. No.2 denied their responsibility towards the Complainant. Though the O.P. No.2 contested the suit and they also cross examined the Complainant but they did not adduce any evidence.                    

EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE COMPLAINANT:-

 

 

3. Complainant has examined himself as PW-I and he has submitted his examination-in-Chief by way of Affidavit. In this case the complainant produced 4 documents comprising 4 sheets under a Firisti dated 30/10/2019. The documents are namely Copy of Ticket booked for the first time dated 10/03/2019(E-mail), Copy of Bank Statement of the Complainant, Copy of reply from the O.P. & Copy of request letter of the Complainant. On identification the  documents are marked as Exhibit-I series & Exhibit-2 series. At the time of argument Complainant submitted SBI Bank pass book as well as Bank Statement which was marked as Exhibit-3 series. The Complainant was cross examined by the O.P. No.2. 

    No evidence is adduced by the O.Ps.  

POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:-

    Based on the contentions raised by the Complainant in the pleadings and having regard to the evidence adduced by the complainant, the following points are cropped up for determination:

        (I) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. towards the Complainant and have also indulged in unfair trade practices?

(II) Whether the complainant is entitled to get  any compensation/relief as prayed for?

 

 

5.          ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES 

  We heard arguments of both sides. 

      At the time of argument Learned Advocate appearing for the Complainant submitted that there is no dispute in respect of booking of two movies ticket for watching movie which was scheduled on 13/03/2019 at Rupasi Cinema Hall, Agartala and the price of tickets was Rs.335.40/- only. There was also no dispute that just before starting the show it was cancelled and as a result the Complainant again booked two tickets for watching the said movie and spent further an amount of Rs.300/- only. The O.P. No.1 assured the Complainant that the price of tickets will be refunded but the O.P. No.1 did not refund the said amount to the Complainant till today. So, the Complainant was compelled to institute the complaint and Complainant is entitled to get compensation not only for the price of the ticket but also for mental agony, harassment and also cost of litigation. 

         Learned Advocate for the Complainant further submitted that the Complainant exhibited the documents as well as the Bank pass book which is clearly shows that the Complainant did not get the refund of the price of the ticket as yet. The Complainant also submitted his examination-in-Chief in the form of Affidavit in support of his claim. So, the Complainant is entitled to get compensation from the O.Ps. 

               On the other hand, Learned Advocate Mr. S. Rahman appearing for the O.P. No.2 submitted that his client O.P. No.2 is not responsible and liable to pay any compensation. As the O.P. No.2 acted only as a intermediary as defined under Section 2(w) of the Information Technology Act,2000 and they are exempted under Law. Mr. Rahman submitted that the Complainant in the complaint did not sick any relief or compensation against the O.P. No.2. The Complainant actually sought compensation from the O.P. No.1 who is the Proprietor of the Rupasi Cinema Hall. Mr. Rahman further submitted that the Complainant in cross examination admitted that in the complaint petition he did not mention adverse against the O.P. No.2 about any deficiency of service. The Complainant also admitted that the averment which are made at Para-2 of his examination-in-Chief is not reflected in the complaint petition.    

              Mr. Rahman submitted that actually the O.P. No.1 is not liable for refund of the price. 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:

 

 

6.          Both issues are taken up together for the convenience. 

        We have gone through the pleadings of both sides as well as the evidence adduced by the Complainant. On perusal of the pleadings, we find that there is no dispute in respect of booking of two movie tickets and the price of the tickets as well as the cancellation of the movie on the date to be shown on 13/03/2019. From the evidence, we found that the Complainant spent further an amount of Rs.300/- only for watching the said movie. The Complainant alleges that he did not get the refund of the price of the tickets though the O.P. No.2 in his written reply stated that the price of the ticket was refunded in the Bank account of the Complainant. In this regard, the Complainant adduced his Bank account SBI Pass Book which is exhibited as exhibit-3 series. From the exhibit-3 series, we find that Rs.335.40 was debited from the account of the Complainant but there is no such amount to be credited. So we can not accept the submission of the Counsel of the O.P. No.2 that the price of the ticket was refunded. From the written version submitted by the O.P. No.2, we find that they are not liable. They claimed that they are only of intermediary but no evidence was adduced by the O.P. No.2 in support of their plea. So, we can not accept the submission of the Learned Counsel Mr. Rahman that the O.P. No.2 are exempted from any liability. In the instant case the O.P. No.1 did not contest the proceeding and it was proceeded ex-parte. So presumption may be drawn up against the O.P. No.1 that the O.P. No.1 assured claimant that the price of the tickets would be refunded due to cancellation of the said movies. 

           On appreciation of the evidences adduced by the Complainant, we are in the opinion that the Complainant has been able to prove his case U/S. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in respect of deficiency of service by the O.Ps. for not refunding the price of the tickets.       

 

 

7.      Hence, the Complainant is entitled to get the refund of price of the tickets as well as compensation for causing deficiency in service. The Complainant is also entitled to get litigation costs.

Therefore, the Complainant will get Rs.335.40/- as price of tickets and Rs.3,000/- for causing harassment plus Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs i.e. in total Rs.8,335.40/- . Both the O.Ps. are directed to make the payment either jointly or severely to the Complainant within a period of 2 months from the date of this judgment and if the O.Ps. fail to comply the order in that case it will carry interest @ 9% P.A. till the payment is made in full with effect from the date of judgment.  

Accordingly, the Complaint is allowed. The Complainant is directed to sent a certified copy of the judgment to the address of the O.Ps. by registered post within 7 days after receiving it for information of the O.Ps. and also for compliance. 

    Announced.

 

SRI  RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

  DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

 MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA