Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/22/393

RAKESH PATHAK - Complainant(s)

Versus

YATRA.COM - Opp.Party(s)

21 Jun 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:393 dated 10.10.2022.                                                         Date of decision: 21.06.2023.

Rakesh Pathak S/o. Sh. Gora Lal Pathak, r/o. R-170, Janta Enclave, P.O. Basant Avenue, Dugri-Dhandra Road, Ludhiana-141013 (Punjab)                                                                                                           ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Sh. Dhruv Shringi, CEO, M/s. Yatra.com, 110-03, 11^th Floor, Tower-B, Unitech Cyber Park, Sector-39, Near HSBC Building, Gurgaon (Haryana)-122001.
2. Mr. Suvadhana Sibunruang Acting CEO, M/s. Thai Airways International, Maker Chamber VI, Unit No.82, 8^th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai (Maharashtra)-40021.

…..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Rakesh Pathak in person.

For OP1                         :         Exparte.

For OP2                         :         Complaint against OP2 stands already                                                         dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated                                                      16.03.2023

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint are that the daughter complainant namely Ms. Aditi Pathak and her friend Ms. Arzoo Sood are studying in B. Arch at Chitkara University, Rajpura Campus, Punjab and presently in 9^th semester. The complainant stated that as a semester exchange program offered by Chitkara University, his daughter and her friend planned to visit South Korea for study and completion of 8^th semester at Chung Ang University, Seoul who after completing all the visa formalities they booked their one way ongoing air tickets from New Delhi to Seoul through online portal of Yatra.com. Air ticket of Ms. Arzoo Sood and Aditi Pathak was booked on 27.12.2021 and confirmed ticket for both the passengers was issued by the portal vide booking reference No.67HCI8. Payment of Rs.69,955/- was made online through account No.11347844188 of State Bank of India, Branch Palampur, Himachal Pradesh. The flight itinerary as per ticket bearing No.TG316 was to depart on 09.02.2022 at 00.20 hours from Delhi to Bangkok with arrival on 09.02.2022 at 05.45 hours and further to depart on 10.02.2022 at 23.30 hours from Bangkok to Seoul with arrival on 11.02.2022 at 06.55 in flight No.TG656. The complainant further stated that an email was received on 19.01.2022 from Thai Airways in which it was stated that flight from Bangkok to Seoul is rescheduled for the next day i.e. from 9^th February to 10^th February with a layover of 24 hours at Bangkok Airport. Both the students had to report at Chung Ang University on the already fixed dates and as such, layover of 24 hours was not admitted and the whole ticket was cancelled by Yatra.com. The complainant further stated that on request, a refund application No.4001398188 was initiated by Yatra.com and it was informed through email to wait for refund for 180 days.  After waiting for more than 180 days, the complainant contacted Yatra.com for the refund but no refund was issued. The complainant written several emails to the opposite parties but nor refund was made and then he moved complaint at “Air Sewa” at GOI Portal for Grievance Redressal vide application No.A22080007680 dated 30.08.2022 upon which Thai Airways issued the refund to Yatra.com on 04.09.2022 which was intimated to complainant through email. The complainant further stated that after waiting since 04.09.2022, no refund has been issued by Yatra.com till 29.09.2022 despite sending emails to Yatra.com. On 29.09.2022 i.e. after 252 days, an amount of Rs.65,159/- was refunded in account of Ms. Aditi Pathak, daughter of the complainant after deducting Rs.4796/-. In the end, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund the full payment of Rs.69,955/- along with interest and also to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

2.                On 16.03.2023, the complainant suffered statement for withdrawing the complaint as against OP2 and as such, in view of the statement of the complainant, the complaint against opposite party No.2 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 16.03.2023.

3.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite party No.1 through registered post dated 20.03.2023 but none turned up for opposite party No.1 despite service and as such, opposite party No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 02.06.2023.

4.                 In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the copy of online air ticket, Ex. C2 is the copy of account statement of Mr. Sanjay Sood and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the complainant and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents produced on record by the complainant.          

6.                Admittedly, the complainant Rakesh Pathak has invoked jurisdiction of this Commission by raising a dispute with regard to refund of balance amount of Rs.4796/- along with interest and compensation for the air tickets booked through opposite party No.1 for his daughter Ms. Aditi Pathak and her friend Ms. Arzoo Sood. Both were necessary and proper parties to be impleaded as co-complainant(s) and without their presence, the matter cannot be completely and efficiently adjudicated upon. Perusal of account statement Ex. C2 shows that one Mr. Sanjeev Sood is the account holder and payment was made from the State Bank of India branch at Palampur, Himachal Pradesh. It is not the case of the complainant that both the beneficiaries were minor and the present case is being filed on their behalf in the capacity of parent or legal guardian. It is also not been pleaded and proved by the complainant that he is the authorized signatory or representative on their behalf. Even the payment has not been made from the account of the complainant. Section 2(5) of the Consumer Protection Act provides the definition of the “complainant”, which is reproduced as under:-

          ‘ “complainant” means-

1. A consumer; or
2. Any voluntary consumer association registered under any law for the time being in force; or
3. The Central Government of any State Government; or
4. The Central Authority; or
5. One or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest; or
6. In case of death of a consumer, his legal heir or legal representative; or
7. In case of a consumer being a minor, his parent or legal guardian.’

Further as per Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides the definition of consumer. Section 2(7)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is  reproduced as under:-

“Consumer” means any person who:-

(ii)hires or avails of 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 include 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 first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.”

 

The complainant has neither hired nor availed any service for consideration, paid or promised and as such he does not fall within the definition of “consumer”. In the given facts and circumstances, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party within the definition of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the complaint in its present form is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed.

7.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:21.06.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Rakesh Pathak Vs Dhruv Shringi, CEO M/s. Yatra.com                    CC/22/393

Present:       Complainant Sh. Rakesh Pathak in person.

                   OP1 exparte.

                   Complaint against OP2 stands already dismissed as withdrawn vide             order dated 16.03.2023.

 

                   Complainant closed his evidence after tendering affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 and Ex. C2.

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                       Member                     Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:21.06.2023.

Gobind Ram.