Delhi District Court
United Poly Engineering Pvt. Ltd vs Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd on 12 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. POORVA MEHRA
CIVIL JUDGE-02, SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of: -
CS SCJ 1275/2017
UNITED POLY ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. VS. YATRA
ONLINE PVT. LTD.
United Poly Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Authorized Representative
Having its office at:
D-13/3, Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase-II, New Delhi-110020. ................Plaintiff
Vs.
Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Authorized Representative
Having its offices at:-
1. 1101-1103, 11th Floor,
Tower-B, Unitech Cyber Park,
Sector-39, Gurugram-122002.
2. B-2, 202, 2nd Floor,
Marathon Innova Building,
Marathon Nextgen Complex,
Opp. Peninsula Corporate Park,
Off. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg,
Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400013. .............Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY
Date of institution of the suit : 07.11.2017
Date of judgment : 12.12.2025
CS SCJ 1275/2017 Poorva Mehra
United Poly Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd. Civil Judge-02/SED
Page no. 1 of 16 Saket Court, ND/12.12.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present suit for recovery and damages to the tune of Rs.2,37,914/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Fourteen Only) along with pendente-lite and future interest @ 18% per annum.
BRIEF FACTS AS PER THE PLAINT: -
2. Plaintiff is a company engaged in the business of manufacture and export of Stainless Steel and Plastic Hospital Holloware and Hospital Furniture and majorly deals in exports. In order to meet their clientele, it Representatives travel a lot to foreign locations to attend exhibitions and client meetings.
3. Defendant is also a registered company and is running a web portal named and assessed at www.yatra.com, which is a leading online travel services provider in India, US and UK.
4. Plaintiff Company has filed the present suit for recovery of damages to the tune of Rs.2,37,914/- alongwith interest 18% per annum towards the refund for the booked air tickets alongwith compensation for the hardship and loss caused to the Plaintiff Company.
CS SCJ 1275/2017 Poorva Mehra United Poly Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 2 of 16 Saket Court, ND/12.12.2025
5. It is averred that Plaintiff Company had an exhibition at Dubai, UAE organized by EEPCINDIA and Plaintiff Company had made the payment for said exhibition on 24.08.2017.
6. Assuming the representations made out by the Defendant Company through its portal namely www.yatra.com, Plaintiff Company through its Director Mrs. Deepali Grover, visited the abovesaid web portal and upon searching for the desired bookings for the international sector Delhi-Dubai-Delhi from 29.01.2017 to 03.02.2017, she chose to reserve two return business class tickets in Fly Dubai Airline. The PNR/ Booking Reference Number 241161537827 was allotted to the Plaintiff's Representative for aforementioned period after making the entire payment.
7. As per the payment processed and records maintained by the Plaintiff Company, a sum of Rs.37,914/- was charged to the card of the Plaintiffs. After deduction of the payment from account of the Plaintiff Company, a confirmation email dated 24.11.2016 at 10:39am for bookings and Airline PNR-N8AQEQ was generated for both the return tickets booking in the name of Ms. Deepali Grover and Mr. Ashish Grover. Accordingly, Plaintiff Company's representatives were supposed to travel from 29.01.2017 to 03.02.2017 for their business trip.
CS SCJ 1275/2017 Poorva Mehra United Poly Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 3 of 16 Saket Court, ND/12.12.2025 8. On 12.01.2017, Plaintiff Company's representative
contacted the customer service centre of the airline, FLY DUBAI to enquire about the baggage allowance on the business class tickets. During the said conversation, it was informed that the booking is not for business class and they only had the economy category tickets. Upon receipt of the said information, Plaintiff Company's representative once again checked the confirmation email sent by the Defendant Company and checked the category/ class of the tickets booked by them. After checking the information, Plaintiff Company's representative immediately contacted the Defendant Company and brought the same to their knowledge that the tickets were booked for business class trip and that there was some error on the part of the Defendant Company which needs rectification.
9. Thereafter, Plaintiff Company kept on following up with the Defendant Company in relation to the fate of their tickets, and it was even brought to the knowledge of the Defendant Company that a quick resolution of the issue was required as the Representatives of Plaintiff Company had to approach the relevant embassy for processing their Visas, which is a pre-requisite for anyone to travel abroad. Plaintiff Company followed up the Defendant Company on daily basis and even sent emails dated 16.01.2017, 17.01.2017, 20.01.2017, 21.01.2017, 24.01.2017 and 01.02.2017, to call upon the Defendant Company to rectify CS SCJ 1275/2017 Poorva Mehra United Poly Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 4 of 16 Saket Court, ND/12.12.2025 the issue in their system on priority and share the updated tickets.
10. It is asserted that after several follow-ups during which the Plaintiff Company's representatives were subjected to humiliation, harassment and threatening behaviour of the representatives of Defendant Company. Defendant Company in order to shy away with their responsibility, sent an email on 28.01.2017 at 10:01am, to the Plaintiff Company and informed that fresh business class tickets had been issued and shared. However, alleged fresh tickets were not received by the Plaintiff Company.
11. Thereafter, Plaintiff Company being frustrated due to the act of the Defendant Company sent an email dated 28.01.2017 that it is a day before the alleged journey and once again called upon them to respond to the email sent by them. However, to further cover up the fraud played by Defendant Company, Plaintiff Company received an email informing that the booked tickets have been upgraded, however, such tickets have never been shared with the Plaintiff.
12. Therefore, being aggrieved by the ruthless and unprofessional attitude of the Defendant Company, Plaintiff Company issued a Legal Notice dated 23.02.2017, which was duly replied by the Defendant Company on 13.04.2017.
CS SCJ 1275/2017 Poorva Mehra United Poly Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 5 of 16 Saket Court, ND/12.12.2025
13. It is averred that Plaintiff Company has suffered financially due to the acts of Defendant Company as the main Representatives of the Plaintiff Company were not able to attend the business meeting and exhibition in time and due to the same have suffered huge monetary losses. Due to paucity of time, the reservations at the hotel were cancelled. The Plaintiff Company had to suffer unnecessary harassment and losses and is claiming Rs.2,00,000/- as damages from the Defendant Company for the fraud played by them. Hence, the present suit for recovery of damages.
SUMMONS:-
14. Summons of the suit were issued to the Defendant Company. Written Statement was filed on behalf of the Defendant Company.
WRITTEN STATEMENT: -
15. Written Statement (WS) was filed on behalf of Defendant Company, wherein, Defendant Company raised multiple preliminary objections as to maintainability of the present suit, no cause of action, etc.
16. It is stated that present suit filed by the Plaintiff Company is completely false, malafide and non-bonafide. The suit is neither genuine nor has any substance in the same. Plaintiff Company by misusing the provisions of law and CS SCJ 1275/2017 Poorva Mehra United Poly Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 6 of 16 Saket Court, ND/12.12.2025 on false pretext and flimsy grounds has filed the present false suit before Court. Neither there is any liability on the part of Defendant Company to make any payment to the Plaintiff Company nor the suit of the Plaintiff is maintainable.
17. That the Plaintiff Company is completely alien and unknown to the Defendant Company and there is no contractual relationship between them. The Plaintiff Company has no locus standi to file and maintain the present suit. Defendant Company has no concern, relationship, dealing or contract with Plaintiff Company and the present suit being without any cause of action, locus standi, contractual relationship, is liable to be dismissed.
18. That the present suit of the Plaintiff Company is based on falsity and act of malafide as it has not approached the Court with clean hands and is guilty of suppression veri and suggestio fail and thus, suit requires rejection out rightly.
19. It is submitted that the two individuals passengers namely, Mr. Ashish Grover and Mrs. Deepali Grover had booked the tickets on the online platform/ website of Defendant Company and the payment in respect of the same was also made by the said individuals. Due to technical error, the category/ class of tickets was changed on upon receiving the complaint at the end of the passengers, the CS SCJ 1275/2017 Poorva Mehra United Poly Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 7 of 16 Saket Court, ND/12.12.2025 rectifications was made and error was rectified in advance before the travelling date, thus, neither there was any deficiency of service nor any shortfall in the services of Defendant Company.
20. Furthermore, present suit is liable to be dismissed as there is no document to show that Plaintiff Company in any manner suffered any loss or damage and therefore, in the absence of material, the present suit is liable to be dismissed.
REPLICATION: -
21. Replication was filed by Plaintiff Company, wherein, Plaintiff Company denied all the claims of Defendant Company made in its Written Statement.
ISSUES:
22. Based on pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:
Issue No.1: Whether the Plaintiff has no locus standi to be filing the present suit and thus rendering the suit liable to be dismissed? OPD Issue No.2: Whether the services rendered by the Defendant were not deficient contrary to what is alleged by the Plaintiff? OPD CS SCJ 1275/2017 Poorva Mehra United Poly Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 8 of 16 Saket Court, ND/12.12.2025 Issue No.3: Whether Plaintiff is entitled to damages to the tune of Rs.2 lakhs as per prayed? OPP Issue No.4: Whether Plaintiff is entitled to the refund of Rs.37,914/- as prayed? OPP Issue No.5: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to pendente- lite and future interest, if so, at what rate? OPP Issue No.6: Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE:-
23. In Plaintiff Evidence, Sh. Akash Khanna, AR of Plaintiff Company deposed as PW-1, vide affidavit of evidence, exhibited as Ex.PW-1/X bearing his signatures at point A and Point B, wherein he reiterated the contents of the plaint.
24. For the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition, the contents are not being reproduced again. PW-1 relied upon copy of Certificate of Incorporation (OSR) as Ex.PW-1/1, Board Resolution dated 12.01.2017 as Ex.PW-1/2, Brochure of exhibition as Ex.PW-1/3 (Colly), copy of email in relation to receipt of payment and confirmation as Ex.PW-1/4 (Colly), email dated 24.11.2016 as Ex.PW-1/5, emails dated 16.01.2017, 17.01.2017, 20.01.2017, 21.01.2017 and 24.01.2017 as Ex.PW-1/6 (Colly), email dated 28.01.2017 as Ex.PW-1/7, Legal Notice dated 23.02.2017 as Ex.PW-1/8, postal receipts and tracking report as Ex.PW-1/9 (Colly), reply of Legal Notice dated CS SCJ 1275/2017 Poorva Mehra United Poly Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 9 of 16 Saket Court, ND/12.12.2025 23.02.2017 as Ex.PW-1/10, Vouchers as Ex.PW-1/11 (Colly), fresh booking of flight as Ex.PW-1/12 (Colly), booking of hotel as Ex.PW-1/13 (Colly) and Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW-1/14.
25. PW-1 was cross-examined extensively by the Ld. Counsel for Defendant Company. Thereafter, vide separate statement, AR of Plaintiff Company closed PE.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE:-
26. It is pertinent to mention here during the course of trial, Defendant Company filed three subsequent applications for substitution of its Authorized Representatives, namely, Mr. Jitesh Puri was substituted with Mr. Pulkit Baluja, who was substituted with Mr. Ankit Sisodia, who was subsequently substituted with Ms. Gauri Sharma. It is apparent on record, that Mr. Ankit Sisodia and Ms. Gauri Sharma had already been examined-in-chief and the matter was pending at the stage of cross-examination of DW. Thereafter, another application for substitution of AR of Defendant Company was filed to substitute Ms. Gauri Sharma with Mr. Aakash Singh, which was allowed vide order dated 04.11.2025.
27. In Defendant Evidence, Mr. Ankit Sisodia, Authorized Representative/Assistant Manager-Legal of Defendant Company, deposed as DW-1 vide his evidence affidavit exhibited as Ex.DW-1/A. He relied upon the Authority CS SCJ 1275/2017 Poorva Mehra United Poly Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 10 of 16 Saket Court, ND/12.12.2025 Letter dated 10.03.2023 as Ex.DW-1/1, Resolution dated 21.09.2022 as Ex.DW-1/2, details of transaction/ payment as Ex.DW-1/3, Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.DW-1/4.
28. Thereafter, the substituted AR namely Mr. Aakash Singh, Senior Manager - Flight Operations of Defendant Company was cross-examined in detail by the Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff Company.
29. Next, vide separate statement of Ld. Counsel for Defendant Company, DE was closed.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:-
30. Final arguments were advanced by Ld. Counsels for both the parties. I have heard the submissions of the Ld. Counsels in detail and also perused the entire case record meticulously.
31. Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff Company submits that Plaintiff Company is claiming recovery of Rs.37,914/- towards refund and Rs.2,00,000/- towards damages alongwith pendente-lite and future interest @ 18% per annum. He argued that Plaintiff Company is the manufacturer and exporter of Stainless Steel and Plastic Hospital Hollowware and Hospital Furniture and its representatives travel to foreign locations in order to attend/ exhibit at exhibitions, client meetings etc. Ms. Deepali Grover CS SCJ 1275/2017 Poorva Mehra United Poly Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 11 of 16 Saket Court, ND/12.12.2025 booked the return tickets for her and Mr. Ashish Grover in business class for the sector Delhi-Dubai-Delhi from 29.01.2017 to 03.02.2017 and after payment of Rs.37,914/-, a confirmation email dated 24.11.2016 with airline no. PNR-N8AQEQ was generated. However, On 12.01.2017, when the representative of the Plaintiff Company called upon the customer service centre of the Defendant Company with respect to baggage allowance for her business class tickets, it is brought to the notice of the representative that the tickets were booked in economy class. Thereafter, Plaintiff Company sent a number of emails to Defendant Company to rectify the issue in their system on priority. The said representatives of Defendant Company fell flat, but, also mentally harassed them. After several follow ups, Plaintiff Company's representatives were subjected to humiliation, harassment and threatening behaviour from Defendant Company. The Defendant Company in order to shy away with their responsibility very cleverly sent an email on 28.01.2017 at 10:01am, with respect to have got fresh business class tickets issued for both representatives of Plaintiff Company, however, said tickets were never shared with them.
32. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for Defendant Company denied all the claims of the Plaintiff Company. He argued that there is no deficiency or any shortfall in services of the Defendant Company. Ld. Counsel for Defendant Company submits that due to technical error, the category/ CS SCJ 1275/2017 Poorva Mehra United Poly Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 12 of 16 Saket Court, ND/12.12.2025 class of tickets which were booked for the claimed sector were changed upon receiving the complaint at the end of passengers and the rectification was made in advance before the date of travel.
ISSUE-WISE FINDINGS:-
33. This court, in light of the evidence at hand has to consider the balance of probabilities. It is to be understood that it is admitted that the Plaintiff Company booked tickets from the online portal of the Defendant Company for travelling purposes of its representatives namely Ms. Deepali Grover and Mr. Ashish Grover for the sector Delhi-Dubai-Delhi from 29.01.2017 to 03.02.2017. The payment for said booking was made through the credit card of above-said people which were later reimbursed. Till here, the averments made by the Defendant Company, do not hold any substance. Plaintiff Company did have a locus to proceed through the company in which Ms. Deepali Grover and Mr. Ashish Grover were working.
34. However, the issue is regarding the class of tickets made available to said passengers. Initially, the passengers booked business class tickets for their travel to Dubai, however, they were given economy class tickets, which was subsequently changed into business class, upon persuasion and due diligence by the Plaintiff Company. It is claimed that Defendant Company defaulted in performing of their duties, as they provided the improper CS SCJ 1275/2017 Poorva Mehra United Poly Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 13 of 16 Saket Court, ND/12.12.2025 travel tickets for the above-said representatives of the Plaintiff Company, which this Court cannot find fault in as Plaintiff Company admits that they were eventually provided with the required tickets.
35. This Court, in its considered opinion, also cannot get into the consideration of damages being awarded to the Plaintiff Company as there is no lack of services as the representatives of the said company did travel to the said exhibition despite the alleged confusion.
36. Coming to the refund, this Court holds that Plaintiff Company did book the tickets from the said portal of Defendant Company, thus, making the Defendant Company liable for refund as per rules of Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA).
37. ISSUE NO. 1:
In light of the above-said discussion, this issue is decided against the Defendant Company and in favour of Plaintiff Company.
38. ISSUE NO. 2:
The above-said discussion is not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity, but, be read as part of the discussion in decision. This issue is decided in favour of the Defendant Company.
CS SCJ 1275/2017 Poorva Mehra United Poly Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 14 of 16 Saket Court, ND/12.12.2025 39. ISSUE NO. 3:
The above-said discussion is not being repeated for the sake of brevity, but, be read as part of the discussion in decision also. This issue is decided against the Plaintiff Company.
40. ISSUE NO. 4 & 5:
These issues are being taken up together based upon the similar facts and circumstances.
41. Plaintiff Company has claimed that it is entitled to recover pendente-lite and future interest @ 18% per annum.
However, in the considered opinion of this court, the claimed interest at the rate of 18% is excessive in the facts and circumstances of the present case and cannot be allowed considering the law of equity.
42. In view of the foregoing discussion, this issue is decided in favour of the Plaintiff Company. As per rules of DGCA (Directorate General of Civil Aviation), Defendant Company is held liable to refund the amount of Rs.37,914/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization.
RELIEF:-
43. In the above-stated facts and circumstances, suit of the Plaintiff Company is partly decreed.
44. Parties to bear their own cost.
CS SCJ 1275/2017 Poorva Mehra United Poly Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 15 of 16 Saket Court, ND/12.12.2025
45. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
46. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Pronounced in the open court (Poorva Mehra) today on 12.12.2025 Civil Judge-02, South-East Saket Court, New Delhi It is certified that this judgment contains 16 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(Poorva Mehra)
Civil Judge-02, South-East,
Saket Court, New Delhi
CS SCJ 1275/2017 Poorva Mehra
United Poly Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd. Civil Judge-02/SED
Page no. 16 of 16 Saket Court, ND/12.12.2025