Back
UTTARAKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DEHRADUN
Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II and
B.S. Manral, Member
Sudesh Uniyal – Appellant
versus
Yatra.com and Ors. – Respondents
First Appeal No.128 of 2018
Decided 3.11.2023
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 41] – Appeal – Service – Air Ticketing – Fault and Negligence not proved – 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 – 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 – 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 Commission was of the considered view that we cannot interfere with the internal management of any Airline services – Thus, Appeal is dismissed, impugned order set aside. [Paras 6 to 20].
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORDER
Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II—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 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 wa
Fault and Negligence—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 mis....
Service providers who receive consideration, have direct liability towards service seekers.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
