APPEAL NO. 215 OF 2009


Sh.Yograj Sharma C/o M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Plot No.-3-A, Sector-19, Chandigarh.

…. Appellant.
Vs.



1. Circle Manager, Bharti Airtel Limited, C-25, Industrial Area, Phase-II, SAS Nagar, Mohali.



2. M/s The Radius (An Airtel Connect) SCO No.51-52, Sector-8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.



3. TLC India Level 4, Rectangle One, District Commercial Complex- D4, Saket, New Delhi.



4. Wunderman India Pvt. Ltd., Building 9 A, 4th Floor, DLF Cyber City, Phase-3, Gurgaon

…. Respondents.

BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT.

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.



Present: Sh.Surinder, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Sh.Krishan Singla, Advocate for respondent No.4.

Respondents No.2 and 3 already exparte.

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER



1. This is an appeal filed by the complainant against order dated 13.3.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) passed in complaint case No.393 of 2008.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant opted Free Flight Offer introduced by the OPs on his Airtel Mobile No.9872469592 and got himself registered vide Registration Form Sr.No.25561 dated 24.11.2005. As per the Scheme, the complainant deposited Rs.550/- vide receipt No.16089, dated 24.11.2005 issued by OP No.2. It was alleged that though as per the terms and conditions, the complainant was eligible for the aforesaid scheme specified in the Registration Form, yet the complainant did not receive any information from the OPs. After waiting for more than a month, the complainant contacted OPs and their representatives and had spent lot of money on making telephone calls. It was further alleged that no satisfactory reply was received from the OP and then he contacted the Nodal Officer of OP No.1 and sent an email on 23.6.2006 but no reply was received. Thereafter the complainant contacted the Appellate Authority of Bharti Airtel Limited on their email address on 7.7.2006. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 20.9.2006 to the OPs, but to no avail. At last the complainant surrendered his Airtel Mobile and paid Rs.550/- to Airtel Franchisee in the month of October, 2006 and thereafter, the a first complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Forum-I UT, Chandigarh, which was dismissed on 04.07.2007. Appeal against the same was also dismissed by State Commission, UT, Chandigarh on 21.08.2007. Due to the above said act of the Ops, the complainant suffered tension and mental agony and he approached the Forum claming compensation of Rs.5 lacs for mental harassment. Hence, this complaint was filed.

3. Reply was filed by OP No.1 in which preliminary objections taken is regarding maintainability of the complaint etc. and pleaded that the TLC Marketing plc./Wunderman India Private Limited are responsible for arranging the tickets in accordance with the terms and conditions and there was no contractual obligation by the OP to provide air ticket, as the complainant had not disclosed the place of departure airport and destination airport. It was further pleaded that when the complainant surrendered the connection then the complainant had no right to claim the benefit under ‘Free Flight Offer Scheme’. All other allegations made by the complainant in his complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs.

4. Reply filed by OP No.4 in which preliminary objections taken is regarding maintainability of the complaint etc. It was also pleaded that the complainant had earlier filed a complaint on the same grounds which was dismissed by District Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh vide order dated 4.7.2007. It was further pleaded that the complainant had not disclosed the place of departure airport and destination airport as the Booking Request Form was sent to complainant through courier but he neither replied nor had given the option of three different flight destinations. The complainant was fully aware at the time of filling up the Airtel Free Flight Offer Registration Form. Hence, there was no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5. The parties led their evidence in support of their contentions.

6. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, as the Booking Request Form was sent to complainant through courier – vide Airway No.40065808823 dated 6.3.2006 and the document had been delivered to the complainant on 10.3.2006 but the complainant neither replied the letter sent by the OP nor had given the option of three different flight destinations. As per Clause 5 of the Airtel Free Flight Offer Registration Form, the complainant had to fill the request form and courier the same to OP. Further, as per Clause 6 of the Airtel Free Flight Offer Registration Form, the complainant had to specify three destination choice and three optional travel date preference from his trip, as the complainant failed to disclose the relevant information to OPs and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The complainant was fully aware of the Clauses at the time of filing up the Airtel Free Flight Offer
Registration Form. Moreover, the complainant had filed the earlier complaint on the same facts before the District Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh which was dismissed vide order dated 4.7.2007 and the appeal against this order was also dismissed by the State Commission, UT, Chandigarh vide order dated 21.8.2007. Therefore, the District Forum dismissed this second complaint with costs of Rs.5000/-, which the complainant shall pay to the OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

7. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, the present appeal has been filed by complainant. Sh.Surinder, Advocate has appeared on behalf of appellant, Sh.Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 and Sh.Krishan Singla, Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent No.4 but none appeared on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3. Hence, the respondents No. 2 and 3 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 26.5.2009. The main point for consideration before us is whether by not providing the air tickets to the complainant as per the scheme named “FREE FLIGHT OFFER” tentamounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

8. The contents of paras No.1 to 4 in the appeal have already been written in the complaint and in the reply, so there is no need to reiterate it again. It is submitted by the appellant that the OPs have failed to produce the receipt of the documents by which they have sent the booking form bearing No. 203307 to the complainant vide AIR way No.400, 658, 08823 dated 6.3.2006, according to the complainant which tentamounts to deficiency in service. Hence, it is prayed by the appellant that the impugned order passed by the District Forum may kindly be set aside and the appeal may be allowed with exemplary cost to the respondent so that they will not harass the customer with false scheme.

9. After hearing the learned counsels for the appellant, respondent No.1 and respondent No.4 as well as going through the written arguments placed on record by respondent No.4 and perused the record, we have come to the conclusion that the appellant/complainant was fully conveyed by the respondents as POD was attached with the reply. The complainant earlier filed the complaint on the same facts and same cause of action before the District Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh which was dismissed on 4.7.2007 and the appeal filed against this order was also dismissed by the State Commission, UT, Chandigarh on 21.8.2007 and both these dismissal were on merits and not on any technical grounds alone. Therefore, the second complaint was without any legal basis and was dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-, which the appellant/complainant shall pay to the OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

10. We are of the considered view that the order passed by the District Forum is well reasoned, just and proper and sustainable in the eyes of law. There is no reason to interfere and we hereby upheld the order passed by the District Forum in toto. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal as devoid of any merit. We further direct the appellant/complainant to pay costs of Rs.5,000/- to the OPs as imposed by the District Forum while passing the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

11. Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

Pronounced.