Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/797/2021

Anuradha Sehgal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Air India Limited. - Opp.Party(s)

Deepak Sharma

17 Feb 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/797/2021
Date of Institution	:	16/11/2021
Date of Decision	:	17/02/2022

 

Anuradha Sehgal wife of Mr. Suvir Sehgal, resident of House No.47, Sector 5, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Air India Limited through its Director-Commercial, Airlines House, 113, Gurudwara Rakabganj Road, New Delhi-110001.
2. General Manager (Commercial), Northern Region, Safdarjang Airport, New Delhi.
3. The Station Manager, Air India Limited, SCO No.162 & 164, Sector 34A, Chandigarh 160034.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RAJAN DEWAN	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Deepak Sharma, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Daksh Prem Azad, Counsel for OPs

 

Per Rajan Dewan, President

1.     The facts in brief are, on 2.4.2021, complainant reserved two return e-tickets for herself and her husband through online booking service of the OPs for travelling from Delhi to Chicago, USA on 9.6.2021 and Chicago to Delhi on 26.6.2021 and paid total consideration of ₹1,72,780/- through credit card.  However, due to outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic in India and USA only restricted flights were allowed, therefore, in the first week of June 2021, complainant got the tickets cancelled from the local office of OPs. Initially the complainant did not seek refund as she expected to visit USA on some later date, however, since the unrestricted flights to USA did not re-start, therefore, email dated 27.8.2021 was sent seeking refund. However, despite sending reminders, OPs failed to refund the amount.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant filed the instant consumer complaint.
2.     OPs contested the consumer complaint, filed their written reply and admitted that the tickets were booked. Averred that in view of multiple flights getting cancelled due to various variants of COVID-19, multiple refunds had to be processed at the same time after verification. Further averred that the acquisition by Tata of the OPs increased the workload of the employee’s multifold times. Pleaded vide circular dated 1.10.2021 validity of the refund had been extended till 30.9.2022 and that OPs would make sure that refund is processed well in advance of the deadline. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.
3.     Rejoinder was filed by the complainant and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated. Stated that against total sum of ₹1,72,780/- OPs refunded her ₹1,51,780/- only and illegally deducted the amount of ₹21,000/-.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
6.     Per pleadings of the parties, facts with regard to booking of the air tickets by the complainant for Delhi-Chicago, USA on 9.6.2021 and Chicago-Delhi on 26.6.2021, cancellation of the same due to outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic and refund sought by the complainant are not in dispute before us at all.  In fact learned counsel for the complainant, at the time of arguments, admitted that during the pendency of the instant consumer complaint, out of the total amount of ₹1,72,780/- OPs have refunded the amount of ₹1,51,780/- after deducting an amount of ₹21,000/- without any rhyme or reason.
7.     Indisputably, complainant could not undertake the scheduled journey due to outbreak of COVID-19 and cancellation of flights. That being so, OPs ought to have refunded the entire amount which would have redressed the grievance of the complainant there and then. However, OPs failed to do so and she was left with no option, but, to approach this Commission for the redressal of her grievance and in doing so endure further harassment and also incur extra expenditure.  It was only during the pendency of the instant consumer complaint that the OPs refunded the amount of ₹1,51,780/- to the complainant that too after deducting an amount of ₹21,000/-.  However, OPs have failed to place on record any document/ statement to justify the deduction of ₹21,000/- made by them.  OPs cannot be allowed to function on their whims and fancies to the detriment of the complainant. Hence, by delaying the refund as well as making deduction from the total amount, OPs are clearly proved to have indulged in deficiency in service and they are liable to refund the balance amount to the complainant alongwith suitable compensation and litigation expenses.
8.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under :-

1. to immediately refund the balance amount of ₹21,000/-  to the complainant.
2. to pay an amount of ₹10,000/-  to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her;
3. to pay ₹5,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

9.     This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
10.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
17/02/2022	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rajan Dewan]
hg	Member	Member	President