State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sudesh Uniyal vs Yatra Dotcom & Others on 3 November, 2023
Appeal No. Sh. Sudesh Uniyal 03.11.2023
128 of 2018 Vs.
Yatra.Com and Others
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN
Date of Admission : 19.09.2018
Date of Final Hearing : 27.10.2023
Date of Pronouncement : 03.11.2023
First Appeal No. 128 / 2018
Sh. Sudesh Uniyal S/o Late Sh. Brij Mohan Uniyal
R/o Near Kamal Printing Press, Mohbbewala, Dehradun
.....Appellant in person
VERSUS
1. Yatra.com
Head Office, 6th & 11th Floor, Tower-B
Unitech Cyber Park, Sector-39 Gurugram (Gurgaon)
Hariyana - 122001
(Through: Sh. Vijay Pal Tiwari, Advocate)
.....Respondent No. 1
2. Jet Airways (India) Ltd.
Head Office, Siroya Centre, Sahar Airport Road
Andheri (East) Mumbai, Maharashtra 400099
3. Manager
Jet Airways (India) Ltd.
Extension Counter, Jollygrant Airport
Dehradun, Uttarakhand
.....None for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3
Coram:
Ms. Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II
Mr. B.S. Manral, Member
ORDER
(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II):
1 Appeal No. Sh. Sudesh Uniyal 03.11.2023
128 of 2018 Vs.
Yatra.Com and Others
This appeal under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been directed against judgment and order dated 25.08.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dehradun (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission) in consumer complaint No. 235 of 2017 styled as Sh. Sudesh Uniyal vs. Yatra.Com and Others, wherein and whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint.
2. The facts giving rise to the appeal, in brief, are as such that the complainant booked his tickets with Jet Airways - opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 after using online platform www.yatra.com and booked his tickets for arrival and departure from Delhi to Guwahati from 17.11.2017 to 19.11.2017 for which he paid an amount of Rs. 14,292/-. By using Jet Airways Service on 17.11.2017, the complainant reached Guwahati. When the complainant travelled from Dehradun to Guwahati, the opposite party No. 2 arranged ramp to ramp transfer of the guest / passenger, who had connecting flights, therefore, the complainant completed his journey through the flight of opposite party No. 2 on dated 17.11.2017, but in the return of the same flight on dated 19.11.2017, the ramp service was not provided to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant has to face many problems. He had requested at Indira Gandhi Airport to the employees of the opposite party No. 2 to cooperate in getting the return flight, but they denied. Due to the deficiency of service of the opposite parties, when the complainant reached at gate No. 42, he was apprised that the flight had left from Delhi to Dehradun. Thereby he had to face several expenses in staying at hotel as well as by using taxies to come to Dehradun after paying huge fare, thereby he had to incur Rs. 40,343/-. Apart from it, the complainant had to suffer financial loss by not working as an Advocate in the Court on dated 20.11.2017, thereby he had got financial loss to the tune of Rs. 75,000/-. In such circumstances, the complaint was brought against the 2 Appeal No. Sh. Sudesh Uniyal 03.11.2023 128 of 2018 Vs. Yatra.Com and Others opposite party for getting Rs. 40,343/- as expenses alongwith compensation for financial loss and mental agony to the tune of Rs. 1,25,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- as litigation charges.
3. In the written statement the opposite party No. 1 submitted that the opposite party No. 1, i.e. Yatra.com is merely a domain name owned by Yatra Online Private Limited and is not a legal person, hence, the complaint suffers from misjoinder of parties and ought to be dismissed; the company do not have ownership of the website Yatra.com. In the instant case, the complainant had used online platform www.yatra.com, hence has become 'User' and by virtue of having 'accepted' the terms of the Master User Agreement, have agreed to this contract. Therefore, as per the terms and conditions, the Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint, because the answering opposite party's office is located in Gurgaon, Haryana and the tour booking was made in the office of answering opposite party in Gurgaon, Haryana. It is further averred that the contents of the complaint are false, frivolous and baseless. The complainant had instituted the complaint against the answering opposite party, Yatra Online Private Limited, which is an online ticketing service provider, providing facility through the medium of internet and phone as well as through retail outlets as per user convenience. The complainant can only file this complaint case against the opposite party Nos. 2 & 3, which in true senses can be called the service provider to the complainant. The complainant had booked return air ticket with Jet Airways, i.e. opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 by using answering opposite party's online platform, i.e. Yatra.com. The said tickets were for travel from Dehradun to Guwahati via Delhi and for the return journey. However, as claimed by the complainant, he missed the Delhi to Dehradun flight for which he believes, staff of Jet Airways was responsible; there was no infirmity in the booking 3 Appeal No. Sh. Sudesh Uniyal 03.11.2023 128 of 2018 Vs. Yatra.Com and Others made by the answering opposite party, as such the answering opposite party's role is restricted to make bookings in accordance with the details inputted by the customers. Thus, there was no deficiency on the part of the answering opposite party and the answering opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation for loss to the complainant. Therefore, the complaint be dismissed under Section 26 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with costs of false, frivolous and vexatious.
4. The opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 jointly filed their written statement alleging that the complaint is totally false, frivolous and vexatious and has been filed with malafide intentions of causing harassment to the answering opposite parties. The complaint lacks the jurisdiction, hence under Section 11 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, it is liable to be dismissed. The true facts of the present complaint is that as per the policy of the opposite party No. 2; the opposite party No. 2 arranges ramp to ramp transfer of the guest who have connecting flights only in case of short time gape between two connecting flights to avoid misconnection. In that case, the guest is not required to check-out from airport and then again check-in for his connecting flight. This facility is usually provided where time gap between connecting flights is less than 30 minutes. It is further alleged that for the connecting flights in the present complaint as well as the opposite party No. 2 had arranged ramp to ramp transfer for the guests who boarded Guwahati to Delhi flight and further wished to travel / board from Delhi to Dehradun to avoid misconnection. Proper arrangements were made for this and in flight announcement was also made for the passenger travelling through connecting flight about the ramp to ramp transfer facility available for the connecting flight to Dehradun. However, despite proper facilitation and announcements, it is the complainant himself who did not respond to any of the announcements and he could not board his connecting flight. Thus, 4 Appeal No. Sh. Sudesh Uniyal 03.11.2023 128 of 2018 Vs. Yatra.Com and Others the complainant himself was negligent in his acts due to which he could not board the connecting flights despite proper arrangements and announcement. Therefore, in the instant case, the complainant is not entitled to any relief claimed by him; the complainant is not a 'consumer' as per definition under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is also averred in the written statement that as soon as the flight from Guwahati reached Delhi Airport, flight crew made an announcement for guest travelling on that flight who were willing to travel further to Dehradun by connecting flight from Delhi Airport. The guests were requested to contact the ground staff standing at exit ramp so that they could be transferred from Guwahati Flight to Dehradun Flight for onward journey; other co-passengers who were in the same flight with the complainant travelled from Guwahati to Delhi were successfully transferred to Dehradun Flight. Thus, there was no deficiency on the part of the answering opposite parties. It is the complainant himself who negligently did not contact the ground ramp staff which clearly shows that there was no deficiency of services from the end of the answering opposite parties. Therefore, the relief claimed in the present complaint is untenable and unreasonable as the complainant has failed to establish any kind of harassment or financial loss caused by the opposite party Nos. 2 & 3. In such circumstances, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
5. The District Commission after hearing both the parties and taking into consideration the pleadings and evidence available on record, passed the impugned judgment and order on dated 25.08.2018 wherein it is held as under:-
"mijksDrkuqlkj] ifjoknh }kjk ;ksftr ;g ifjokn [kf.Mr fd;k tkrk gSA i{kdkj viuk&viuk okn O;; Lo;a ogu djsx a sA"5
Appeal No. Sh. Sudesh Uniyal 03.11.2023
128 of 2018 Vs.
Yatra.Com and Others
6. Against the impugned judgment, the present appeal has been submitted by the complainant as appellant. Appellant has contended that the District Commission has ignored the facts and evidence available on record and passed the impugned judgment without facts, evidence and law. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. It is also pleaded in the appeal that the District Commission has not exercised its judicial mind while passing the impugned judgment and has not properly interpreted the evidence available on record. Therefore, the impugned judgment is perverse and in contravention of the mandate provisions of law. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned judgment should be set aside.
7. We have heard appellant in person as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and perused the material available on record.
8. It is pertinent to mention that the notices upon the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 were served, but they did not appear before the Commission, hence an order against the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 was passed to proceed the appeal ex-parte on dated 27.10.2023. It is also to note that as per information submitted by both the parties, the office of Jet Airways (India) Ltd. is closed and it is not functional.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has stated that Yatra.com is not a legal person; it is merely a domain and this company is known as Yatra Online Private Limited, which the company having ownership of website Yatra.com. It is further averred that the appellant - complainant has not properly mentioned the description of the company of the respondent No. 1.6
Appeal No. Sh. Sudesh Uniyal 03.11.2023
128 of 2018 Vs.
Yatra.Com and Others
10. We are of the view that if the ownership rights of the website Yatra.com vests in Yatra Online Private Limited Company, then such company should be properly arrayed as party by its correct name. During the course of arguments, the appellant has not averred that what was the deficiency on the part of the respondent No. 1 while booking the tickets from Dehradun to Guwahati and from Guwahati to Dehradun. In the complaint, nothing is pleaded / averred that what was the deficiency in regard to the tickets booking process of the said flight from 17.11.2017 to 19.11.2017.
11. It is established on record that the appellant had booked his air tickets from Jet Airways - respondent Nos. 2 & 3 by using online platform of respondent No. 1, i.e. Yatra.com. These tickets were for travelling from Dehradun to Guwahati vide Delhi and for return journey as well. The appellant has averred in his complaint that he missed his flight from Delhi to Dehradun for which he stated, the absurd behaviour of the ground staff and there was a gross negligence on the part of the Jet Airways. In the whole complaint, the appellant has mentioned in all the paras of his complaint, deficiency on the part of the Jet Airways - respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and there was no averment in regard to any deficiency on the part of respondent No. 1, hence we are of the view that there was no deficiency on the part of respondent No. 1.
12. Appellant has contended that the crew members have not co- operated him in getting the connecting flight and they told the appellant to contact the ground staff standing at exit gate, but the staff was not available in the exit gate. Therefore, he could not reach to get the connecting flight and thereby he missed his flight.7
Appeal No. Sh. Sudesh Uniyal 03.11.2023
128 of 2018 Vs.
Yatra.Com and Others
13. As per pleadings of respondent Nos. 2 & 3, it is stated that as soon as the flight from Guwahati reached Delhi Airport, flight crew made an announcement for guest travelling on that flight who were willing to travel further to Dehradun by connecting flight from Delhi Airport and the guests were requested to contact the ground staff standing at exit ramp, so that they could be transferred from Guwahati flight to Dehradun flight for onward journey, but the appellant was negligent himself and could not make any communication with the ground staff to get connecting flight. By own negligence, the appellant has missed his flight for which respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are not responsible for any deficiency of service.
14. In the record, appellant has not submitted any affidavit of any passengers who were also travelling in the same flight. Apart from it, no cogent evidence has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the crew members or employees of respondent Nos. 2 & 3 had misbehaved with him.
15. In our view when on dated 17.11.2017 all the facilities were provided to the appellant for getting the connecting flight, then no question arises as to that same Jet Airways has not provided the same facility in the return flight from Guwahati to Dehradun via Delhi to the appellant.
16. On record the appellant has not filed any cogent and reliable evidence that there was any fault and negligence on the part of the respondent Nos. 2 & 3, thereby the appellant missed his flight from Delhi to Dehradun.
17. Appellant has averred that he has filed this appeal only for the purpose before the Commission to direct the Jet Airways service to give proper time in more than half an hour in getting connecting flight, but we 8 Appeal No. Sh. Sudesh Uniyal 03.11.2023 128 of 2018 Vs. Yatra.Com and Others are of the considered view that we cannot interfere with the internal management of any Airline services.
18. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the District Commission has passed the impugned judgment perfectly in justified manner and had appreciated all the facts and evidence available in the record of the District Commission. The impugned judgment is not perverse and no infirmity and illegality is found in passing of the impugned judgment. The District Commission has not exercised the jurisdiction which was not vested in it and not acted upon with any illegality. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the finding of the District Commission. We hold that the appeal is liable to be dismissed and the impugned judgment deserves to be affirmed.
19. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Impugned order dated 25.08.2018 passed by the District Commission, Dehradun is hereby affirmed. No order as to costs of the appeal.
20. A copy of this Order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 /2019. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties. The copy of this order be sent to the District Commission concerned for record and necessary information.
21. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Order.
(Ms. Kumkum Rani) Judicial Member II (Mr. B.S. Manral) Member Pronounced on: 03.11.2023 9