Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/177/2022

CLEARTRIP PVT LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

VISHAL BHARDWAJ - Opp.Party(s)

ATUL SHARMA

08 May 2023

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	:	177 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	21.12.2022
Date of Decision	:	08.05.2023

 

Cleartrip Pvt. Ltd., Unit No. 001, Ground Floor, DTC Building, Sitaram Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400011, through its Director.

……Appellant/opposite party

 

V e r s u s

Vishal Bhardwaj S/o Sh. Jagdish Chand, R/o H.No.3445/1, Sector 38-D, Chandigarh.

…..Respondent complainant

BEFORE:              JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                             MR.RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

                            

Present:-              Sh.Atul Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

                             Respondent exparte vide order dated 21.04.2023.

                                      

JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

 

This appeal has been filed by the opposite party (now appellant), feeling aggrieved by the order dated 27.01.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the District Commission), whereby the consumer complaint bearing no.15 of 2019 was partly allowed against it, as under:-

“…..For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party, and the same is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is directed:-

[a]    To refund Rs.44,975/- to the Complainant;

[b]    To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and for causing harassment caused to him.

[c]     To also pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by Opposite Party; thereafter, Opposite Party shall be liable for an interest @9% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c]….”

2.           Alongwith this appeal, the appellant/opposite party has filed miscellaneous application bearing no.921 of 2022 for condonation of delay of 204 days, in filing the same, on the ground that the office of the appellant is situated at Mumbai and the office of its Counsel is situated at Delhi. The said office remained closed due to pandemic-COVID-19 since March 2020 and the entire legal department was following work from home. The local counsel engaged by the appellant to handle the original matter before the District Commission did not inform the appellant about passing of such order, and as such, later on the case was handed over to the new counsel, as a result of which delay in filing this appeal took place.
3.           Arguments of the appellant on this application heard.
4.           In view of the reasons explained in the application and also the findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil  Original Jurisdiction Miscellaneous  Application No. 21 of 2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020, decided on 10.01.2022, wherein it was held that in the cases,  where the  limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022  shall stand excluded; the delay of 204 days in filing this appeal stands condoned. This application stands allowed and is disposed of,  accordingly.
5.           Now coming to the main appeal, before the District Commission, it was alleged by the complainant- Vishal Bhardwaj that he booked air tickets from the mobile app. of the opposite party from Chandigarh to Lucknow with departure dated 28.01.2019 and the return ticket dated 30.01.2019 vide Trip I.D. 181218347262 on 18.12.2018 as per Annexure P-1. After completing the booking, he  realized that he has booked the tickets for the wrong dates and therefore, tried to modify the same from the mobile app, but could not succeed owing to technical error. Resultantly, he called the Customer Care Helpline of the opposite party, but again the date could not be changed. However, he was informed that no flights were available; whereas, Cleartip app was showing multiple flights available for fresh booking. Hence he filed consumer complaint before the District Commission seeking refund of the amount paid by him towards the said tickets, alongwith compensation etc. 

2.           The opposite party/appellant which was only the agent of the Airlines in which the complainant booked his tickets stated that it provides a facility/platform for booking of flight tickets and the actual service providers are the Airlines. It was stated that on receipt of payment of Rs.44,975/- the booking was successful and an e-ticket bearing Trip I.D. 181218347262 was sent to the e-mail of the Complainant provided by him at the time of booking. It was further stated that on 18.12.2018, the complainant contacted the Customer Support Team of the opposite party and informed that mistakenly he had booked for travel on 28^th January – 30^th January, 2019 instead of booking for 28^th December – 30^th December, 2018. The Customer Support Executive assisted the complainant to amend the booking for the desired dates, but could not find any flights available due to lot of traveling happened on account of Christmas Eve. It was averred that the Support Executive also inquired with the complainant on the flexibility of the dates, but he refused to travel on other dates.
3.           In the rejoinder filed, the complainant reiterated all the averment contained in his complaint and controverted those contained in reply filed by opposite party.
4.           The contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents before the District Commission.
5.           The District Commission after going through the material available on record, partly allowed the consumer complaint, in the manner stated above, by holding the opposite party deficient in rendering service and ordered it to refund the amount of Rs.44,975/- paid by the complainant towards airfare alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.
6.           Hence this appeal.        
7.           Initially, Sh.Shiv Krishan Sehgal, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent/complainant on 01.02.2023, yet, thereafter, none put in appearance on his behalf thereafter on 27.02.2023, 24.03.2023 and 21.04.2023, as a result of which, he was proceeded against exparte by this Commission.
8.           Accordingly, we have heard the counsel for the appellant; gone through the material available on the record and written arguments filed by the appellant, very carefully.
9.           It  has been vehemently contended by counsel for the appellant that it provides a facility/platform for booking of flight tickets and the actual service providers are the Airlines. He further contended that on receipt of payment of Rs.44,975/- the booking was successful and an e-ticket bearing Trip I.D. 181218347262 was sent to the e-mail of the complainant provided  by him at the time of booking, yet, he wanted to reschedule his journey, but since no seats were available, he was informed about the same. He further submitted that  instead of cancelling the said air tickets, the respondent/complainant filed the consumer complaint, out of which this appeal has arisen. 
10.           It is significant to mention here that record of this case reveals that the air tickets, Annexure P-1, were booked by the respondent/ complainant through the opposite party in respect of flights-Air India, Vistara and Indigo, on making payment of Rs.44,975/-. Under the terms and conditions of the said tickets it has been clearly mentioned that any refund claims arising due to cancellation or delay of flight by the airline shall be subject to Cleartrip receiving the refund amount from the airline. These tickets have been placed on record by the complainant himself. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that since the sale consideration qua the tickets in question have ultimately been received by the airlines aforesaid, though through opposite party being agent of airlines, as such, in our considered opinion, the said airlines are also necessary parties, in the matter, to apprise, as to whether, the respondent/complainant is entitled for any refund or not. As such, it was necessary for the respondent/complainant to implead the said airlines as necessary parties, in the main consumer complaint but he failed to do so. In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 27.01.2021, passed by the District Commission in the main consumer complaint, out of which this appeal has arisen, is bad for non-joinder of the said airlines alongwith opposite party as necessary parties and therefore not sustainable in the eyes of law.      
11.           In view of above, the appeal stands allowed and the order impugned is set aside. The respondent/complainant is  directed to file amended consumer complaint by impleading the airlines concerned alongwith opposite party/appellant before the District Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt  of a certified copy of this order. 
12.           Consequently, this case is remanded back to the District Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh with the direction to give notice to the parties concerned, after receiving amended complaint from the complainant; thereafter permit the parties to file reply and evidence; contest the amended complaint; and decide it afresh, as per law.
13.           However, it is made clear that this order passed will not  have any relevance on the merits of the case at the time of considering and deciding the amended consumer complaint, by the District Commission.
14.           Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
15.           The appeal file be consigned to Record Room, after completion and record of the District Commission concerned be sent back immediately.

 

Pronounced

08.05.2023

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

 

Rg.