DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 14th day of February, 2023
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of filing: 01/07/2022
CC/114/2022
Raghu. K. G., S/o T.Chandran
360/10, Gayathri
Near Chatankulangara Temple
Kallekulangara
Palakkad - 678 009 - Complainant
(Party in person)
Vs
Travolook.in
836, 2nd Floor
Udyog vihar, Phase 5
Sector 19
Gurugram, Haryana - 122 008 - Opposite party
(Ex-parte)
O R D E R
By Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member
1. Pleadings of the Complainant
The complainant booked a Go Air flight ticket from Delhi to Srinagar through the opposite party paying Rs. 9,783/- on 30/03/2022. After a couple of days the complainant an executive from the opposite party informed him that the airlines have cancelled his ticket and has to pay additional amount to retain the same ticket. Not interested in doing so the complainant asked for refund of the fare paid. As advised by the opposite party, the complainant cancelled the ticket from the airlines website on 22/04/2022 under "full refund" option. The complainant got a confirmation mail from the airlines on 25/04/2022, stating that a refund of Rs. 8,132/- has been made to the opposite party. Since the refund was not received from the opposite party, inspite of several follow up calls, he lodged a complaint with the National Consumer Helpline (wrongly mentioned as Consumer Forum in the complaint) on 02/06/2022. The complainant received multiple calls from the opposite party informing him that his eligible refund is Rs. 6,477/- only. The complainant was not willing to accept this offer, since the cancellation of his ticket was under "full refund" option. Finally on 16/06/2022, he received an e-mail from the opposite party releasing the refund amount of Rs. 6,477/-.
Aggrieved by this, the complainant approached this Commission seeking orders for the refund of the differential amount of Rs. 3,306/-, compensation of Rs. 1.00 lakh for the sufferings and mental agony apart from the cost of proceedings.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite party. They didn't enter appearance and hence was set ex-parte.
3. The complainant didn't file proof affidavit and mark any document as evidence. Further the complainant was absent for the proceedings on 14/12/2022 & 20/01/2023. Hence the complaint was taken for orders based on merits.
4. Post 20/01/2023, the complainant's interim application to reopen the evidence and to accept the proof affidavit was allowed and accordingly, the complainant filed proof affidavit and marked documents, Ex.A1 to A4 as evidence. Ext.A1 is the print out the travel ticket, Ext.A2 is the copy of e-mail from the opposite party, Ext.A3 is the copy of the complaint lodged with the National Consumer Helpline and Ext.A4 is the refund confirmation issued by Goair.
Ext. A1 & A2 clearly shows that the tickets issued are not in the name of the complainant but in the name of one K.G Ajay & Nikhitha Ajayan. The complainant has never disclosed who these travelers are or produced any authorization to file the complaint on their behalf. Hence the complainant cannot claim the status of a "Consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
5. In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in open court on this the 14th day of February, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
Appendix
Documents marked from the side of the Complainant
Ext.A1: Print out of Air ticket issued on 30/03/2022.
Ext.A2: Booking Confirmation Mail dated 30/03/2022 from the opposite party.
Ext.A3: Copy of complaint lodged with National Consumer Helpline dated
02/06/2022.
Ext.A4: Refund confirmation from GoAir dated 25/04/2022.
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
