Date of Filing: 06.05.

2019
Date of Order: 31.12.2020

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: RANGA REDDY

Present

SMT CHITNENI LATHA KUMARI, LL M, M.A., M.Sc, B.Ed, PRESIDENT

SRI G.V.S.PRASAD RAO, M.A., LL M, MEMBER
SMT D.MADHAVI LATHA, M.COM, LL M, P.G.D.F.M.C. LADY MEMBER

THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER

TWO THOUSAND TWENTY

CC 144/2019

Between:

Niraj Kumar Sharma, C/o Maheshwara Reddy,

8-129/10, Lavanaya Enclave, Beside Shilpa Nagar,
Nagaram Village, Gram Panchayat – Keesara Mandal,
District – Rangareddy, Hyderabad – 500 083.
... Complainant

AND

The General Manager,

MakeMyTrip India Pvt. Ltd.,
18th Floor – Tower A, B and 19th Floor – Tower A, B, C
Building No.5, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase III,
Gurgaon – 122 002, Haryana, India.
… Opposite Party

Complainant : Party-in-Person
Counsel for Opposite Party : M/s D.Narendar Naik, Advocates

This complaint is filed U/Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying

this Commission to direct the Opposite Party (i) to book the alternate flight booking
Hyderabad to Banglaore as per agreed Holiday Package to the complainant (ii) to
pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation towards mental agony (iii) to pay
Rs.50,000/- towards costs of the proceedings and grant any other relief or reliefs
as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper.

ORDER
1.

(PER HON’BLE Smt.D.MADHAVI LATHA,

LADY MEMBER ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH)

1. Brief averments of the complaint are as follows:

The complainant submits that he booked a holiday package to Kerala

with Opposite Party scheduled on 25-11-2019 to 29-11-2019 and cost of

the Package is Rs.55,618/- for 3 people. The complainant made an online

payment of Rs.27,000/- on 14-03-2019 at 7:18 p.m. through ICICI Bank

and booking conformation is NL2106181779919. The Opposite Party

booked flight tickets of Jet Airways 9W-806 from Hyderabad to Bangalore

to travel on 25-11-2019, Bangalore to Kochi Air Asia (India) 1451 on 25-

 2

11-2019 and return Flight Kochi to Hyderabad Indigo 6468 on 29-11-

2019. That after one month on 15-04-2019, the Opposite Party sent a mail

to the complainant that “Jet Airways 9W-806” is cancelled by Airlines and

in alternate opting for Indigo Flight 6E-413 for Hyderabad to Bangalore,

the complainant to pay additional amount of Rs.4,164/-. The complainant

submits that he booked the total Holiday Package including Flight charges

and as per its own selection and profit criteria, Opposite Party selected the

Jet Airways. The complainant submits that he requested the Opposite

Party to consider his alternate booking as per the agreed terms,

communicated through mails and also registered the grievance in National

Consumer Helpline No.1266470 dt:18-04-2019. It is a say that the

complainant was not given any option for booking flights and hotels at the

time of booking by the Opposite Party which is 9 months prior to the

travel schedule and the Opposite Party refusal to book the alternate flight

in agreed holiday package to the complainant alleged Opposite Party

deficiency in service to the complainant and claimed compensation for the

loss of time inconvenience, suffering and metal stress. Hence this

complaint.

2. The Opposite Party filed written version and resisted the claim of the

complainant taking preliminary objection that the complaint allegations

are not true and claim of the present complaint is not maintainable either

on facts and/or in law as the contents of the complaint are frivolous,

vexatious, baseless and devoid of merits. There is no deficiency in service

on the part of the Opposite Party and therefore no case is made out

against it under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. It is

alleged that complainant paid partial booking amount of Rs.27,000/- out

of the total price of Rs.55,618/- for the Holiday schedule from 25-11-

2019 to 29-11-2019. The Opposite Party booked the flight tickets for 3

persons i.e. the complainant, his wife and daughter from Hyderabad to

Bangalore as per the instruction of the complainant. The Opposite Party

submitted that the terms and conditions of Kerala Holiday package from
 3

25-11-2019 to 29-11-2019 bearing booking No.ID NL2106181779919 is a

customized one and the Opposite Party intimated the terms and

conditions of the said package to the complainant prior to and at the time

of booking the Holiday Package and the itinerary as well as the flights

were choice of the complainant. It is stated that Opposite Party just an

intermediary between users and the service providers for booking the

tickets and flights in question part of e-commerce business. The Opposite

Party also resisted the claim of the complainant, pleading that while the

flight Jet Airways 9W-806 booked on 14-03-2019 for travel on 25-11-2019

was cancelled and grounded all its operations and in lieu of cancellation

the Opposite Party acted in a prudent and diligent manner to make

necessary alternate flight booking and also stated that complainant not to

been hampered by such cancellation and realized the dynamic pricing of

the flight tickets informed the complainant to pay difference of amount

resulting in increase in the total cost of the package by an additional

amount of Rs.4,164/-. Denying its liability or any deficiency in service on

the part of the Opposite Party as duly provided its services having received

the partial amounts from the complainant and the services of Opposite

Party not yet ceased as per the schedule fixed at the time of booking and

prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. The complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got documents

marked as Ex.A1 to A5 on his behalf. Sri Pranab Manna, working with the

Opposite Party Company filed evidence affidavit and Ex.B1 is marked on

their behalf. Only the complainant filed his written arguments.

4. Now the points for consideration in this case are:

1) Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on

the part of the Opposite Party?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as claimed for? If
so, To What relief?

5. Point No.1: The dispute between the complainant and the Opposite

Party can be summarized to the extent of finding out the liability of the

Opposite Party to make an alternative flight plan at its costs or at the cost
 4

of the complainant. Heard the complainant and perused the entire record

placed before us. The e-mail correspondence–Ex.A2 and Ex.B1 which is

one and the same clinches the dispute of this case. The 9th and 15th

bulleted terms incorporated in Ex.A2 reads as follows. “the customized

package may or may not be available on www.makemytrip.com every time

however any booking done on this package will be fulfilled as per the

combination selected by the customers & “In case of any unavailability in

the listed hotels/flight arrangement make my trip will try to provide

alternative accommodation in hotel of similar standard and for flight

similar service airline will be provided”.

The complainant had opted for a Kerala holiday package offered by

the Opposite Party at a price of Rs.55,618/-. This package admittedly

includes travelling by air. Admittedly, upon receipt of the part payment of

total package amount, the Opposite Party had booked flights to and fro in

the names of the complainant and his family members. As per the above

terms, it shall be the responsibility of the Opposite Party to make similar

alternative arrangements in the event of any event that happens

unscheduled. Admittedly the initial travel from Hyderabad to Bangalore

through Jet Air ways is cancelled and the Opposite Party sought the

acceptance of the complainant for booking the seats in Indigo Airlines at

further costs. The complainant refused to pay the further amounts

quoting it as the responsibility of the Opposite Party to make alternative

arrangements at his own costs within the amount agreed under the

Holiday package. The Opposite Party tried to justify its refusal to book the

tickets at its own costs citing a term No.7 which speaks that “the final

price of the same package combination may vary from time to time and

shall not be fixed. Any claims on the package price shall not be

entertained”.

This term No.7 appears to be in contradiction to term No.9 and it

would come to the rescue of the Opposite Party only in the event of any

modifications in the package made by customer. As per term No.9, even if

 5

any customized item is not available, the Opposite Party took full

responsibility of fulfilling the combination of the package selected by the

customer and as per term No.15, it is the responsibility of the Opposite

Party to make alternative arrangements and there is condition of making

any additional payment by the customer. The Opposite Party contested

that the complainant himself has selected the Jet Airways for his travel

and is bound to pay additional amounts for booking in other Airlines. This

contention does not inspire any confidence in the absence of any specific

term and condition or agreement to that effect. Term 15 clearly culls out

the choice of selecting the hotels or Airlines are with the Opposite Party

only. However, the Opposite Party demanding additional amounts towards

the alternate Flight booking charges itself is unfair trade practice.

6. Point No.2: There is no evidence to show that the complainant had

availed the services of the Opposite Party under the agreed holiday

package and that the Opposite Party has refunded the amounts received

from the Complainant. Since there is no evidence as they availing any

services from the Opposite Party. Therefore, deficiency of any service

cannot be attributed on the part of the Opposite Party. However, this

Commission find fault with Opposite Party for demanding additional

amounts towards alternate Air travel as unfair trade practice. This

Commission feels that after the offer and the acceptance of a travel

package for a certain price, the customer shall not be burdened with

additional amounts which he has not agreed. There cannot be a surprise

springing at the customer unless he opts for modifications in the package

at his own expense. Therefore, this Commission opines that the Opposite

Party is not justified in demanding the additional amounts from

complainant for alternative flight.

Apart from praying for refund of the admitted amounts paid by him

to the Opposite Party towards part payment of the holiday package, the

complainant claimed compensation for pain and suffering and costs of the

complainant. There is no evidence placed by the complainant that he had

 6

availed the services of the Opposite Party and that he was prevent by the

Opposite Party for availing the similar services from any other agency.

Therefore, this Commission is not inclined to grant any compensation to

the complainant under this head. However, in view of the above

observations, this Commission is of the opinion to allow the complaint in

part.

7. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite

Party is directed to refund Rs.27,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand

only) together with interest @ 6% from 14.03.2019 till the date of

realization and to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards

costs of the litigation to the complainant. Time for compliance is 30 days,

failing which the interest shall be enhanced to 12% p.a. from the date of

default till the date of realization.

Dictated to the Steno-typist, transcribed by her, corrected by me and

pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 31st day of December, 2020.

Sd/-
PRESIDENT

Sd/-
MEMBER

Sd/-
LADY MEMBER

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant For Opposite Party

Affidavit filed Affidavit filed

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainant

Ex.A1 – Copy of Email dt.14.03.2019 – payment of Rs.27,000/-

Ex.A2 – Copy of Email dt.14.03.2019 – Booking Confirmation ID
NL2106181779919
Ex.A3 – Copy of Email – Flight Booking Details
Ex.A4 – Copy of Email dt.15.04.2019
Ex.A5 – Copy of Emails conversation
Exhibits marked for the Opposite Party
Ex.B1 – Copy of Terms and Conditions

Sd/-
PRESIDENT

Sd/-
MEMBER

Sd/-
LADY MEMBER