Orissa

Cuttak

CC/99/2021

Asutosh Mohanty - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart Internet Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

self

03 Sep 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                C.C.No.99/2021

Asutosh Mohanty,

S/O:Biranchi Narayan Mohanty,

R/O:MC-23,Sector-7,CDA,Cuttack-753014.                ... Complainant.

        

                                                Vrs.

1.        Flipkart Internet Private Limited,

Buildings Alysa,Begonia and Clove Embassy Tech Village,

Outer Ring Road,Devarabeesanahalli Village,

Bengaluru-560103.

 

2.       Air India Ltd.,

Airlines House,113 Gurudwara,

Rakabganj Road,New Delhi-110001....Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    08.07.2021

Date of Order:  03.09.2022

 

For the complainant:                Self.

For the O.P No.1:                      Mr. J.B.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.2:                      Mr. S.K.Mohanty,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                         

            The case of the complainant in short is that on 9.2.21 he had booked Air ticket through O.P No.1 to travel through O.P No.2 from Bhubaneswar to Mumbai on 24.4.21 and to return from Mumbai to Bhubaneswar on 28.4.21 but due to the pandemic situation of Covid-19, the conference of the complainant at Mumbai was cancelled for which he had to reschedule his tour programme from 24.4.21 to 9.10.21 and to return from Mumbai on 17.10.21 instead of 28.4.21.  When the complainant intimated to O.P No.1 about the rescheduling of his tour, O.P No.1 had intimated him that there would be rescheduling charges, which, according to the complainant, had been waived out as because there was no rescheduling charges for one time travel with effect from 10.4.21 to 31.5.21.  The complainant had sent mail to O.P No.2 on 21.4.21 for rescheduling his Air tickets and O.P No.2 through mail had replied on 24.4.21 instructing him to contact his Travel Agency(O.P No.1) since because his Air ticket was booked through O.P No.1.  Accordingly on 29.5.21, the complainant had called the customer service of O.P No.1.  O.P No.1 had responded through mail to the complainant to resolve the problem by 28.5.21.  Ultimately, the complainant had issued notice to both the O.Ps on 6.6.21 but when he could not get any reply, he has filed this case against both the O.Ps seeking direction to them to reschedule his Air tickets or in the alternative, to provide him the full refund, also to direct the O.Ps to pay him a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for their deficiency in service and for the mental harassment caused to him.  He has also prayed for a sum of Rs.15,000/- from the O.Ps towards his litigation expenses and has further prayed for any other relief as deemed fit and proper.

            The complainant has filed xerox copies of documents showing initial Air tickets for to and fro as made by O.P No.1 and also written request for rescheduling the air tickets and the correspondences thereon.

2.         Both the O.Ps have contested this case but have filed their separate written versions. O.P No.1 in his written version has urged that the complaint petition as filed is liable to be dismissed since because the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands and had rather suppressed the material facts.  O.P No.1 admits about the complainant’s booking of Air tickets through him on 9.2.21 for travelling from Bhubaneswar to Mumbai and to return from Mumbai to Bhubaneswar on 28.4.21.  On 14.4.21 the complainant had applied for rescheduling the flight tickets to different dates.  O.P No.1 had duly intimated the complainant about the rescheduling charges as per the rescheduling policy of the Airlines Company.  The rescheduling could not be done by O.P No.1 since because the complainant had not paid the desired rescheduling charges as per the rescheduling policy of the Airlines Company.  According to the written version of O.P No.1, he is only an intermediary or facilitator and has been wrongly arrayed by the complainant here in this case.  Thus, it is prayed by O.P No.1 in his written version to dismiss the complaint petition with exemplary costs.

            O.P No.2 in his written version has stated that there was no deficiency on their part to the complainant.  O.P No.2 is not aware about the correspondences inbetween the complainant and the O.P No.1 in respect of the tour programme and Air tickets of the complainant.  Ofcourse the O.P No.2 admits about the flight tickets as booked for the complainant by O.P No.1 through them from Bhubaneswar to Mumbai and back and thus the rescheduling as desired can only be made through O.P No.1.  Thus, the O.P No.2 has prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant with cost.

3.         Keeping in mind, the averments as made in the complaint petition and contentions of two written versions as filed by the O.Ps, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.

            i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

            ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps?

            iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

            The complainant has filed his evidence on affidavit thereby corroborating all the contentions made by him in his complaint petition.

 

Issue No.ii.

            Issue no.ii being the pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

            Admittedly, O.P.No.1 is the Flipkart and the O.P.No.2 is Air India in this case.  It is also admitted that the complainant had booked his flight tickets for travelling from Bhubaneswar to Mumbai through Air India on 24.4.21 and to return from Mumbai on 28.4.21 and those tickets were made for him through O.P No.1.  It is also not in dispute that the complainant wanted to reschedule the flight tickets and had made correspondences with O.P No.1 to that effect.  He had also written for the same to O.P No.2 who had advised him to contact O.P No.1 who had initially booked his flight tickets.  The contention of O.P No.1 is that since because the complainant had not given the rescheduling charges, he could not reschedule the flight tickets of the complainant as desired.  The complainant has filed copies of several documents showing the communications as made by him to both the O.Ps in this case and he has also filed a copy of the terms and conditions wherein one free change as applicable to all the tickets for travel period with immediate effect till 31.5.21.  The complainant wanted to reschedule his Air tickets and commenced his journey from Bhubaneswar to Mumbai through Air India on 9.10.21 and to return from Mumbai to Bhubaneswar on 17.10.21.  To this aspect Annexure-5 a copy of the terms and conditions as annexed to the complaint petition when perused, it is noticed that one free change is applicable to all tickets for travel was effective within 12.4.21on/ before 31.5.21 due to Covid measures adopted by different State Governments in order to convene the pandemic.  Thus, the said Annexure-5 do not reflect that if the intended journey of the complainant in the month of October is to be covered having no rescheduling charges since because he had already booked his ticket earlier which he wants to reschedule.  On the contrary, the contention of O.P No.1 appears to be believable that the rescheduling as intended by the complainant could not be effective when the complainant did not pay the rescheduling charges.  Accordingly, this Commission found no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps here in this case.

Issues no.i & iii.

            From the above discussions as made in issue no.ii, it can never be said that the case of the complainant is maintainable and he is entitled to the reliefs as claimed.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                            ORDER

            The case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

            Order pronounced in the open Court on this the 3^rd day of September,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                                                            

 

 

   Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                         President

 

                                                                                   

                                                                                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                              Member.