State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Yatra.Com vs 1. Govardhanam Suraj, on 5 February, 2024
1
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.
(ADDITIONAL BENCH)
F.A.No.333 OF 2019
AGAINST ORDERS IN C.C.33/2014
DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, NALGONDA
Between:
Yatra.com, Represented by its Manager,
5-10-188/2, Door No.202, 2nd Floor, Summit House,
Hill Fort Road, Hyderabad - 500 004.
.........Appellant/ Opposite Party No.2
And:
1.Govardhanam Suraj, S/o Krishnamacharyulu, Aged : 26 years, Represented by his father G.Krishnamacharulu, S/o Sri Rangacharyulu, Age : 58 years, R/o H.No.6-2-564/1, Hyderabad Road, Nalgonda Town, Nalgonda.
.............Respondent No.1/Complainant
2. Justdial for Tours and Travels, Represented by its Manager, H.No.7-1-23, Roxana Building, 1st and 2nd Floor, Above Meena Bazar Extension, Greenlands, Begumpet, Hyderabad-500 016.
........Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.1 Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite Party No.2 : M/s.Gopi Rajesh and Associates Counsel for the Respondents No.1 /Complainant : Sri B. Venkanna Counsel for the Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.1 :
Sri A.Kranthi Ramana QUORUM :
HON'BLE SRI V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER-JUDICIAL & HON'BLE SMT R.S. RAJESHREE, MEMBER - (NJ) MONDAY, THE 05th DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FOUR ********** 2 Order : (PER HON'BLE SRI. V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER - JUDICIAL)
1. The appeal is filed u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by the opposite party No.2 aggrieved by the order of District Consumer Forum, Nalgonda, dated 24.01.2019 in CC 33/2014, whereunder, the complaint against Opposite Party No.1 was dismissed and the opposite party No.2 was directed to pay Rs.45,500/- with interest at 9% per annum from 07.07.2012 till the date of realization; to pay Rs.25,000/- towards damages within one month from the date of order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at 9% per annum.
2. The brief averments of the complaint are that the complainant got a seat in MS in Chicago University (USA) and has to join in the college on 10.08.2012; that opposite party No.1 is a service provider agency of opposite party No.2; that the complainant approached opposite party No.1 to purchase the flight ticket upto Chicago and paid Rs.45,500/- as demanded by the Opposite Party No.1 towards flight charges by way of cheque; that Opposite Party No.1 confirmed the complainant about the reservation of the ticket through Opposite Party No.2 and travel details also reflecting in the website of Yatra.com; that the flight ticket bears No.DV 742 G and the date of travel was from the Hyderabad on 06.08.2012; that suddenly the complainant came to know on 05.08.2012 that his ticket was confirmed upto Dubai only and then made enquiries with Opposite Parties who gave irrelevant reasons and further informed that the amount paid by the complainant is for two persons; that Opposite Party No.2 changed the travel schedule without knowledge of the complainant; that the opposite parties played fraud on the complainant; that a legal notice was issued dated 01.09.2012 but there was no answer from the opposite parties; that the complainant suffered huge monetary loss and was forced to make alternative arrangements which costed Rs.1,00,000/-; that he also suffered mental agony which is assessed at Rs.1,00,000/-; hence, the complaint claiming Rs.2,00,000/- with costs.3
3. The brief averments of the written version of Opposite Party No.1 are that it is a public limited company registered under the Companies Act and render services by operating on the telephone internet and wireless to its customers; that the complaint is false, bogus and not maintainable; that opposite party No.1 never agreed to provide ticket booking service to the complainant and received Rs.45,500/- towards flight charges to go Chicago; that if there is any deficiency in service it is by the opposite party No.2 or the travel agent or both; that no legal notice was received by opposite party No.1. With this requested to dismiss the complaint.
4. The brief averments of the written version of Opposite Party No.2 are that the complaint is not maintainable either on facts or under law; that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite party No.2; that the complainant is not a customer as per Sec.2(d) (ii) of the C.P.Act. and there is no deficiency in service at all; that the complainant approached local travel agent for booking the tickets who in turn utilized the services of Opposite Party No.2 for commercial purpose; that the name of travel agent is Mr.Sachin with email ID "[email protected]" as per the records of the Opposite Party No.2, and the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party; that there is no agent and principal relationship between Opposite Party No.1 & 2, and on the other hand the said local agent is having agent - principal relationship with complainant;
that as per the instructions of local agent, the Opposite Party No.2 booked ticket for two persons for the amount of Rs.45,500/- paid by way of cheque; that inspite of several reminders the local agent not made full payment for the ticket booked in favour of complainant; that abundance of evidence is available for the communication made by Opposite Party No.2 with local agent; that as per the conditions of the email "this confirmation is a mere holding of booking in your name with the Airline and your booking 4 will be converted in to a confirmed reservation only upon the payment of the rest of the booking amount"; that the Opposite Party No.2 is not liable to pay anything to the complainant.
5. Before the Commission below, Mr.G.Krishnamacharyulu, father cum GPA holder of complainant filed evidence affidavit as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A4. Ex.B1 to B4 are marked for the opposite party No.2 and Ex.B5 to B7 are marked for the opposite party No.1.
6. The Forum below, settled the following points for discussion:-
(i) Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim?
(ii) To what relief?
7. Having heard both sides and after going through the written arguments of opposite party No.1, the Forum below on merits allowed the complaint with the directions as stated supra. Aggrieved by the same, the opposite party No.2 filed the present appeal with the following grounds:-
The order of the Commission below is contrary to law, weight of evidence and facts of the case. The Commission below failed to appreciate the evidence available on record and the order of refund is erroneous in law .
The Commission below failed to appreciate that opposite party No.2 is only online ticketing service provider by providing facility through internet and phone. There is no relationship of customer and service provider between the complainant and the opposite party No.2, as such there is no question of any deficiency of service. That as the Travel agent played fraud on the complainant, this Commission has no jurisdiction to decide the case and the Commission below failed to consider the judgment of the Hon'ble NCDRC reported in 2015(I) CPJ 93.5
The Commission below failed to appreciate that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of local agent Mr.Sachin or his associate Mr.Venkara Sharma.
With these grounds and others that will be urged at the time of arguments requested to set aside the order of the Commission below and to dismiss the complaint, by allowing the appeal.
8. Now the point for determination in this appeal are:-
(i) Whether there is any customer and service provider relationship between the complainant and the opposite party No.2?
(ii) Whether the confirmation of a mere holding of booking is not the criteria to decide the confirmation of reservation?
(iii) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.2? If so, to what amount?
(iv) Relief?
9. Points No.1 to 4 : Both sides advanced the arguments but, no document is marked for either side in this appeal. For the sake of convenience the parties will be addressed as they arrayed in the complaint. It is important to note that as per the written version of Opposite Party No.1 it is rendering services over telecommunications and electronic devices by telephone, internet and wireless access protocol to its customers to obtain localized directory services and the internet and alleged that, the complaint is false, bogus and it based on unfound premise and it never aggrieved to provide ticket booking services to the complainant. No documents whatsoever, is filed by PW1 that it contacted Opposite Party No.1 and a person sent by Opposite Party No.1 came to him and received the cheque for Rs.45,500/- towards the flight charges from Hyderabad to Chicago. On the other hand, Opposite Party No.2 filed written version stating that as per the records one Mr.Sachin deposited cheque for Rs.45,500/- and addressed a mail to them to book tickets for two persons with the amount of Rs.45,500/- with separate booking IDs. Inspite of giving the email address of Mr.Sachin, no steps were taken by PW1 to implead 6 Mr.Sachin as a party to the complaint. Except, the email sent by Mr.Sachin to Opposite Party No.2 with an instruction to book two tickets, there is no other document for PW1 to show that he had submitted any email and postal address to the Opposite Party No.2 to entertain any correspondence. When nobody out of Opposite Party No.1 & 2 are owing Mr.Sachin as their agent, it is for PW1 to prove that he was an agent for any of the opposite parties but, he failed to do so. It is a big lacuna in the case of complainant.
10. It is also to be observed that to the knowledge of Opposite Party No.2 Mr.Sachin is certainly a travel agent, otherwise, it should not have issued a confirmation ticket to the complainant and also another ticket to a different person basing on the instructions given on mail. Ex.A1 is the cheque, dated 07.07.2012 issued by the complainant in favour of opposite party No.2 for Rs.45,500/- for the reason that as per the version of local travel agent, the said amount will be the cost of the ticket from Hyderabad to Chicago. It is a crossed cheque. Opposite Party No.2 is accepting that the cheque was deposited by the local travel agent and it was encashed. Ex.A2 is the details of the confirmation ticket which was automatically generated on the system. As per the same, the complainant has to travel in Jet Airways- 9W 550 from Hyderabad to Dubai on 06.08.2012 and from there to Washington DC in United Airlines- UA 977 on 07.08.2012 and from there to Chicago in United Airlines - UA 359. Along with the same, the details of the break-up figures for total cost of the ticket is also received by the complainant and as per the same, the cost of the ticket was at Rs.57,252/-, said to have been paid.
11. It is important to note that, the complainant is having knowledge that he paid only Rs.45,500/- by way of cheque. When the cost of the ticket is more than the amount paid by him, it is for him to explain how he thought that he can travel without paying the balance amount. It is not the case of the complainant that, he 7 paid the balance amount either to the local agent of Opposite Party No.1 or to the Opposite Party No.2. Added to the same, as per the complaint when the journey is on 06.08.2012 suddenly it came to the knowledge of the complainant on 05.08.2012 that. his ticket was confirmed upto Dubai only. It shows the carelessness of the complainant. When he contacted Opposite Party No.1 & 2, came to know that for not paying the balance, the ticket was cancelled and due to the same he booked another ticket in another flight and reached the destination by spending Rs.1,00,000/-. No proof is filed to show that he spent Rs.1,00,000/- as claimed for the journey in the flight on another ticket. Ex.B1 is the mail correspondence between [email protected] by one Mr.Sharma with Opposite Party No.2. It shows that, when Opposite Party No.2 demanded for the balance payment, the budget travels requested for time to upkeep the ticket for one day to pay the balance. On 03.08.2012 at 09:30 P.M. the Opposite Party No.2 informed to Mr.Sharma that for the non-payment of amount, the ticket was cancelled. Ex.B4 goes to show that as per the terms and conditions "this confirmation is a mere holding of booking in your name with the Airline, and your booking will be converted into a confirmed reservation only upon payment of rest of the booking amount". So it is very clear that as per Ex.B4 the ticket for the complainant was issued under Ex.A2 subject to terms and conditions of the payment of balance amount. It is not the case of PW1 that he paid any amount other than the amount paid under Ex.A1.
12. It is to be observed that the complainant is not directly dealt with the Opposite Party No.2. As per the mail correspondence made under Ex.B1, B3 and B4 goes to show that one Mr.Sharma or [email protected] entertained the correspondence with opposite party No.2, so one can safely conclude that there is no customer and service provider relationship between the complainant and the opposite party No.2. In view of the above discussions and the facts involved in the case, the points are answered against the appellant. The Forum below failed to observe 8 all these aspects, as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
13. In the result, the appeal is allowed without costs and the order of the District Consumer Commission, Nalgonda in CC 33/2014, dated 24.01.2019 is set aside. The Opposite Party No.2 is entitled to take back the statutory deposit with accrued interest and any other amounts paid by it while preferring the appeal; ofcourse after the lapse of appeal time.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-JUDICIAL MEMBER (NJ)
Dated : 05.02.2024
*AD