Orissa

Cuttak

CC/70/2012

P Ramlingeswar Rao - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director,M/s Make My Trip(India) Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

A K Samal

15 Jul 2023

ORDER

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

C.C.No.70/2012

          P.Ramalingeswar Rao,

           S/o: P.Sanyasi Raju,

           Resident of At:Bali Bhagat Road,

           P.O:BuxiBazar,Town/Dist:Cuttack,

           Pin-753001.                                 ... Complainant.

          Vrs.

1.       M/s. Make My Trip (India) Pvt. Ltd.,

103,Ydyog Vihar,Phase-1,Gurgaon-122016(Haryana),

Represented through its Managing Director.

2.       The Customer Care Division,

Air-India,Orissa Office, Near Capital Unit-1 Market,

(Opposite Mahila Thana),Bhubaneswar,

                  Dist:Khurda,Orissa

3.        AirIndia,CorporateOffice:Safdarjung Airport,

Aurobindo Marg,SafdarjungEnclave,Delhi-110029.

4.        State Bank of India,

Buxibazar Branch,

               At/Po :Buxibazar ,Town/Dist:Cuttack-753001.        

5.        Senior Operation Executive,Billdesk

Customer Care,515,AtmaHouse,Ashram Road,

Ahmedabad,Dist:Ahmedabad,Gujurat-380009.                                  ...Opp. Parties.

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

Date of filing:   03.04.2012

Date of Order:  15.07.2023

For the complainant:                   Mr. A.K.Samal,Advocate.

For the O.P no.1    :                   Mr. R.R.Jain,Advocate.

                 For the O.P no.2& 3:                M/s.J.B.Pattnaik,Advocate.

For the O.P no.4:                    Mr. A.K.Mishra,Adv. & Associates.

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

          Case of the complainant bereft unnecessary details as made out from the complaint petition in short is that the complainant alongwith his family members had booked Air tickets in order to undertake flight by paying a sum of Rs.15,549/- on 28.8.2010 and the schedule of the flight was on 25.10.2010.  It was O.P no.1 who had booked such tickets for the complainant and his family members.  The complainant had ID No.110406-034758, Reference no.110312-01194.  The complainant had booked his Air tickets by paying the aforesaid amount from his S.B. A/c. no.10546469499 on 28.8.2010 vide Bill Desk transaction no.POS PRCH-POS 024069557928.  Since because the ticket was not confirmed he could not undertake the journey and had requested the O.Ps to revert back his money to his account but when the said request was not given any effect, the complainant had sent legal notice to the O.P.no.1 on 31.12.2011.  In reply to his said legal notice, the O.P.no.1 through their letter dtd.11.1.2012 had replied that they could not find the transaction details as provided in the said legal notice of the complainant.  The transaction details were thus again sent by the learned counsel of the complainant through letter dt.7.2.2012 asking refund of Rs.15,549/- the amount that was debited from the account of the complainant and was credited to the account of the O.P.no.1.  But when no fruitful result yielded, the complainant has come up with this case claiming from the O.Ps refund of his paid amount of Rs.15,549/- alongwith interest thereon @ 18% per annum together with compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- towards his mental agony and harassment.  The complainant has further prayed for the cost of his litigation alongwith any other relief as deemed fit and proper.

          Alongwith his complaint petition, the complainant has filed copies of several documents in order to prove his case.

2.       Out of the fiveO.Ps as arrayed in this case, O.P no.5 has been deleted as per the memo filed by the complainant vide order dtd.12.4.2022.  Thus out of the remaining four O.Ps though all of them have contested this case, O.P no.1 has filed his separate written version whereas O.Ps no.2 & 3 have jointly filed their written version and O.P no.4 has also filed his written version separately.

          From the written version of O.P No.1, it is noticed that according to him, the petition of the complainant being not maintainable is liable to be dismissed.  O.P no.1 has mentioned that the case of the complainant requires to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder and mis-joinder of the necessary parties.  According to O.P no.1, the Air India and the State Bank of India as well as the Bill Desk are required to be impleaded in this case who can explain as to why the Air tickets were not booked and as to why the amount was not refunded.  O.P no.1 through his written version has admitted that the complainant had approached him with a request for booking Air ticket for himself and his family members from Mumbai to Bhubaneswar and that he could not commence his journey.  O.P no.1 has alleged that on getting the legal notice from the complainant, they had asked for the booking details which could not be provided by the complainant or his lawyer.  From his investigation he could know that the booking of the Air tickets were done by the complainant with the Air India directly and that the amount of Rs.15,549/- was not charged by the O.P no.1 which the O.P no.1 could get from the payment gateway.  Thus, as it appears from the written version of O.P no.1 that he is in no way responsible for the dislocation caused to the complainant.He has prayed for dismissal of the complaint petition which is not maintainable against him.

          The O.P no.1 has filed copies of several documents alongwith his written version in order to support his stand.

          As per the written version of O.Ps no.2 & 3, the complainant had logged into the website of O.P no.1 for purchasing Air tickets from Mumbai to Bhubaneswar for the Airlines operated by O.Ps no.2 & 3.  Since because no such payment was received, no valid ticket was issued and accordingly, O.Ps no.2 & 3 have prayed through their written version to dismiss the complaint petition as filed against them, it being not maintainable.

          O.P no.4 through his written version has stated that the case of the complainant is not maintainable as there is no cause of action against him.  O.P no.4 admits about a sum of Rs.15,549/- to have been debited from the bank account of the complainant on 28.8.2010 vide POS no.0240695577928 as per his instructions only.  The O.P no.4 has no further role for which he has prayed to dismiss the complaint petition as filed.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written versions of all the O.Ps, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps  and if they have practised any unfair trade ?

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

Issue no.II.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue is taken up  first for consideration here in this case.

After perusing the contents of the complaint petition, the written versions as filed here in this case and also after perusing the copies of documents as filed by the parties to this case, it is noticed that there is no  dispute that the complainant with the intent to commence journey through Air had booked Air tickets through O.P no.1 in the flight conducted by O.Ps no.2 & 3 for himself, his wife and his daughter so as to enable him and his family members in order to come from Mumbai to Bhubaneswar on 25.10.2010.He had paid an amount of Rs.15,549/-for the said purpose having Reference Id. NoNo.110406-034758, Reference no.110312-01194.  But since because there was no confirmed ticket available, the complainant and his family members could not undertake their journey on the said date from Mumbai to Bhubaneswar.   He thereafter demanded back the money that which he had paid but when the same was not refunded to him he had to send legal notice and after getting the same, O.P no.1 wanted the booking details from the complainant.  The complainant urges to have provided all those to O.P no1.   While going through the copies of correspondences and annexures as filed by the complainant and is available in the case record, it is noticed that the learned counsel for the complainant Mr. N.N.Nanda had sent the legal notice to O.P.no.1 on behalf of the complainant.  The O.P no.1 through letter dtd.11.1.2012 had written to the said learned counsel of the complainant asking him to provide the booking ID, booking reference no., Email ID at the time of booking and the mobile phone number as provided at the time of booking.  In response to such query as made by O.P no.1, the learned counsel for the complainant Mr. N.N.Nanda had written through his letter dtd.7.2.2012 that the Email ID of the complainant was

By adopting the process of elimination and after scanning each and every piece of evidence as available in this case record, it is noticed that O.P no.4 can never be held responsible here in this case and as he has acted as per the direction of the account holder/complainant and had no knowledge as to whom and for what purpose, the said money was being transacted under the instructions of the complainant/account holder.  O.Ps no.2 & 3 have urged that they had not issued any Air tickets since because they had not received any money to that effect.  O.P no.1 has stated that the complainant had booked Air tickets directly from O.Ps no.2 & 3. The complainant could not prove that if he had paid any money to the said O>Ps no.2 & 3 for his Air tickets as there is no documentary proof in order to entangle O.Ps no.2 & 3 by holding them to be liable.  Due to lack of sufficient evidence, this Commission is unable to cling on the allegations of the complainant and to entangle O.P no.1 here in this case even.  Thus, this Commission arrived at an irresistible conclusion that the complainant has utterly failed to prove if any of the O.Ps are to be made responsible here in this case for finding them deficient in their service and if any of them had practised any unfair trade.  Hence, this issue goes in favour of the O.Ps.

Issue no.i&iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is not maintainable and the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.

                                              ORDER

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 the 15^thday of July,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.          

                                                                                                                    Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                     President

                                                                                                          Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                             Member