Date of Filing:29/01/2016

   Date of Order:19/10/2016

ORDER

BY SRI.SYED ANSER KHALEEM, PRESIDENT

1.     This is the complaint filed U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred in short as O.Ps) alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and prays for direction to the O.Ps to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for having suffered mental and physical agonies and cost of the proceedings.

2.   The brief facts of the complaint is that, the O.ps carrying on the transport business in the name and style of goibibo.com by providing booking of Air ticket services on the request of the customers.  The complainant booked Indigo flight tickets through online from O.ps through goibibo.com website in order to travel from Bangalore to Delhi on 11.7.2015 and also for return journey on 12.7.2015. However, complainant by availing the service of O.P on 11.7.2015 travelled to Delhi, whereas the complainant on 9.7.2015 requested the O.P to rescheduled the return journey on 16.7.2015 instead of 12.7.2015 and the same was confirmed by the O.Ps agent and also paid additional amount of Rs.1,563/-. It is the grievance of the complainant that inspite of confirmation O.ps not arranged the rescheduled tickets on 16.7.2015 and it was finally learnt on the date of returning, complainant did not receive confirmation ticket nor the Ops refund the amount, hence the complainant by alleging the deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps filed this complaint.

3.     Upon issuance of notice O.Ps appeared through their counsel and filed their version and it is contended that the very complaint is filed by complainant is an abuse of process of law and not maintainable before this Forum. The complainant filed the complaint by suppressing the material facts. It is denied that there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on their part.  Further the O.Ps denied all the allegations made in the complaint.  It is further contended that, these O.Ps are facilitators of reservation of flight tickets and not the aviation company or the carrier.  Further contended that the O.Ps do not have any control over operation, non-operation or cancellation of flights and the same has been agreed under the booking terms and conditions. It is also admitted that, the complainant had booked flight tickets from Bangalore to New Delhi to and fro schedule on 11.7.2015 to return on 12.7.2015.  It is submitted that, the complainant on 9.7.2015 requested the O.Ps for rescheduling  the return flight on 16.7.2016 from New Delhi to Bangalore and the complainant was duly informed that for rescheduling he will have to pay the rescheduling charges plus fare difference and the same was mentioned in the booking terms and conditions specifically mentioned in the ticket.  It is further submitted that the O.Ps sent the payment link to the complainant for making the payment however the complainant could not make the payment even after several attempts. Further the complainant called the customer care of these O.Ps on 11.7.2015 and informed that the linked worked later on the same day and payment was done. It may be clarified over the phone call these O.Ps traced the payment and the complainant requested for cancellation of flight however before final confirmation for rescheduling the flight the phone call was disconnected and thereafter the phone number of the complainant was not reachable . Further the O.Ps confirmed the changes made in the flight schedule and updated the flight ticket for 16.7.2015 as per the request of the complainant.  As per the information received from the flight operator INDIGO airlines the complainant called the flight operation on 13.7.2015 directly and requested for the cancellation of the ticket and the complainant failed to inform the same to these O.Ps.  It is denied that flight was not rescheduled and the complainant approached himself to the airline company and requested for cancellation.  Hence contended that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of INDIGO airlines to the proceedings. It is submitted that after cancellation O.ps have refunded the amount of Rs.2,491/- on 12.1.2016 and hence contended that there is no  unfair trade practice or deficiency in service. On other grounds O.Ps prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4.     To substantiate the above case, both the parties have filed the affidavit evidence along with documents.  We have heard the arguments.

5.     On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following points will arise for our considerations are:-

                  (A)    Whether the complainants have proves

                 deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?

(B)  Whether the complainants are entitled to the

         relief prayed for in the complaint?

(C)    What order?

6.     Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT (A) : In the affirmative

POINT (B) : In the partly affirmative.

POINT (C):  As per the final order

for the following:

REASONS

POINT (A) & (B):-

7.     On perusal of pleading of the parties, it is not in dispute that the complainant by availing the service of the O.Ps booked the airline tickets in order to travel from Bangalore to New-Delhi on 11.7.2015  and for onward journey from New-Delhi to Bangalore on 12.7.2015 and paid Rs.10,428/-. It is also not in dispute that, the complainant comfortably travelled from Bangalore to New-Delhi on 11.7.2015. However, it is the specific case of the complainant is that he has rescheduled the onward journey from 12.7.2015 to 16.7.2015 and the ticket is confirmed and also paid additional charges of Rs.1,563/- whereas the complainant alleged that, the reschedule is not done accordingly and hence he is not travelled, but he travelled to Bangalore through train.  Further complainant alleged that, the O.Ps did not refund the return journey fair to the complainant. Per-contra, O.Ps contended that the complainant directly spoke to the airline operator regarding cancellation but not informed to this O.Ps and also contended that they are not the authority to control the flight operations. However, O.Ps contended that they have returned Rs.2,491/- on 12.1.2016 and contended that there was no deficiency in service on their part. 

8.     On perusing the  Syndicate Bank endorsement dated 13.11.2015 it clearly disclose  that the complainant has paid reschedule additional amount of Rs.1,563/- to his debit card also it reflects in the account statement at Ink page No.12.  The crux of the matter is to consider whether the complainant is entitled for the refund of the amount paid towards reschedule of the flight by not taking the return journey from the O.ps?

9.     However, the O.Ps in their version clear admitted that, they have paid Rs.2,491/- on 12.1.2016. Furthermore, to substantiate the case of the O.Ps about the return of the above said amount. In the affidavit evidence of complainant it is admitted that the Ops have made payment of Rs.2,491/- against cancellation of return journey after issuance of legal notice. On perusal of the legal notice dated 28.12.2015 and the amount of Rs.2,491/- refund on 12.1.2016, it clearly discloses that O.ps were refund the amount only after the service of legal notice, it shows that the very deficient conduct of the O.Ps.  It is worth to mention that, when the O.ps contended that they are not operating the flights and not responsible how can refund the above said amount to the complainant.  The flight tickets issued and confirmed through O.ps only and when the complainant did not undertake the return journey they cannot deny the refund as claimed by the complainant and the contention of non-joinder of INDIGO airlines to the proceedings cannot be accepted and the O.ps are only have to take care of their customers interest by providing better service.  Under the circumstances, we reached to conclusion that, the non-refund of the return journey amount against the non-receiving of the flight ticket inspite of reschedule payment it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. In the attendant circumstances of the case, we deem it just and proper to direct the O.ps to pay a sum of Rs.4,286/- to the complainant along with interest at rate of 12% per annum from the date of payment till realization of the amount. Further O.ps also directed to pay cost of litigation Rs.2,000/- further due to non-responding to the complainant to refund the amount and made the complainant to approached this Forum and hence the complainant should be suitably compensated for return journey through train as evidence by the railway ticket dated 17.7.2015, hence obviously complainant suffered inconvenience  and thereby we deem it proper to direct the O.ps to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant,  it will meets the ends of justice. Accordingly we answered these points in the affirmative.

POINT (C):

10.   On the basis of the findings given above on the point No.(A) and (B) and in the result, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1. The complaint is allowed-in-part with cost.
2. The O.P.No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,286/- to the complainant along with interest at rate of 12% per annum from the date of payment till realization and further O.ps are directed to pay compensation for a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant
3. Further O.Ps are directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the litigation.
4. The O.ps are hereby directed to comply the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this Forum within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.

5. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 19^th Day of October 2016)

MEMBER                PRESIDENT