AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In a complaint filed by the respondent who is a practicing lawyer the District Commission held the petitioner liable for refund in respect of the air travel tickets said to have been purchased for the complainant and his family members for an air travel onward journey from Chandigarh to Bangkok and back. An amount of Rs.60,609/- was paid through Paytm wallet including charges of convenience fee for facilitating the booking of the flight tickets.
The flight was cancelled by Jet Airways due to operational reasons on 18th April 2019 and a mail was sent to the complainant to claim refund of the tickets directly from the travel agent. Unfortunately, the refund was not credited to the account of the complainant as such a legal notice was issued whereafter the complaint was filed.
During the pendency of the complaint it was brought to the notice of this Commission that a resolution process had set in with the insolvency proceedings in respect of Jet Airways and it was informed that due to this development there was no deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner nor was he even legally liable. The District Commission, however, came to the conclusion that since the booking was made through the website of the petitioner and the amount was paid through Paytm wallet, the refund had to be made. The District Commission also took into account the insolvency proceedings that had set in and it was also held that since convenience fee charges had been levied by the petitioner, the liability to pay cannot be disputed. Accordingly, the refund of the amount of Rs.60,609/- together with Rs.10,000/- as cost was awarded by the District Commission vide order dated 28th February, 2020.
The petitioner went up in appeal being FA/84/2020 before the SCDRC UT Chandigarh and the appeal has been dismissed on 25th February, 2022 by making the following observations: -
"The above contentions are not palatable to this Commission. The Jet Airways themselves vide e-mails dated 19.04.2019 and 2304.2019 has informed the respondent to connect with the travel agent for refund. Since, the tickets were booked through Paytm portal in which the respondent has paid the cost of ticket alongwith the convenience fee and charges and therefore, we feel that the appellant is responsible for refund of the amount and therefore, this Commission is inclined to fall in line with the decision of the District Commission and accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
For the reasons recorded above, the appeal being devoid of merit, must fail, and the dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Commission is upheld."
Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Jain contends that the impugned orders are legally not sustainable inasmuch as the petitioner is not a selling platform and is only a facilitator with information available and it is open to any customer to choose any flight through any Airways and book it accordingly with them. Consequently, the petitioner is not a service provider for any services of Airways as the ticket booking amount was directly payable to the Jet Airways that had cancelled its flight due to some operational reason. The Airways also went under insolvency process and therefore, the liability could not be shifted on the petitioner. The District Commission has held that since a convenience fee had been charged by the petitioner therefore, they were liable for a refund and the State Commission also proceeded to hold that since the tickets were booked through the portal of the petitioner and the Jet Airways had also communicated to the complainant for contacting the Travel Agent for refund, the petitioner was liable and responsible for the refund of the amount.
Having considered the submissions raised we do not find ourselves in agreement with the legal position regarding the status of the petitioner and the contract of air services which was directly with M/s Jet Airways to whom the ticket amount was payable. Learned Counsel for the petitioner may therefore be correct in his submission that to that extent, the impugned orders are not sustainable. There is no service of air travel offered by the petitioners. The air travel service was that of the airline. We therefore agree with the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
We would have proceeded to have dealt with this matter with our ultimate findings but learned counsel for the petitioner informs, and which has been confirmed by the learned Counsel for the respondent that since there was no stay in the present revision petition the entire decretal amount upon adjusting the statutory pre-deposit to the tune of Rs.70,609/- has already been released by the State Commission vide order dated 30th March, 2022 to the respondent - compliment.
In this view of the matter, we dispose off this revision petition with the observation that even though we do not agree with the legal reasoning of the Fora below, but in view of these subsequent events where the amount awarded has already been released to the respondent – complainant, it would not be appropriate to interfere with the impugned orders. The revision position stands disposed off accordingly.