Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/22

Rajesh Verma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Global Travels - Opp.Party(s)

Rajsh Verma Adv.

10 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 22 dated 17.01.2020.                                                Date of decision: 10.08.2022.

 

Rajesh Verma Advocate, aged 57 years, B-I-1395, Pink Vihar, Near Sabzi Mandi, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                               ..…Complainant

•  

1. M/s. Global Travels, 2, Behind Hotel Residency, Near Bus Stand Jalandhar, through its proprietor/partner/authorized signatory.
2.  
2. Nand Kishore, authorized signatory/employee of M/s. Global Travels, SCO-226, 227, 1s Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.                                                                                                                 …..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate in person.

For OPs                          :         Sh. Anish Kant Sharma, Advocate.

 

ORDER 

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                In nutshell, the case of the complainant is that on 16.02.2019, the complainant booked air tickets of Jet Airways through OP1 and OP2. The flight of Jet Airways was to depart from Delhi to Winnipeg on 16.04.2019. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.58,000/- to the OPs for booking the said ticket. As per the terms and conditions of air tickets, the passenger could carry weight of 21 Kg along with one hand back free of costs. However, few days prior to the flight, the complainant was informed that the Jet Airways had closed its business and was no longer operating the flight and, therefore, the flight had been cancelled. As a result, the complainant had to book an alternative flight for his son through M/s. Dreams Vacation for Lufthansa International/Air Canada for 23.04.2019 on payment of a sum of Rs.94,000/-. As per the said ticket of Lufthansa Airlines, the passenger was allowed to carry only two suit cases whereas the Jet Airways allowed three suit cases. The complainant had booked the Jet Airway ticket as the said airlines allowed to carry more luggage in terms of weight than any other airline. After cancellation of the ticket, the complainant requested the OPs telephonically to refund the amount of the ticket but the OPs kept dillydallying the matter and refunded the amount only on 24.07.2019. In the circumstances, the complainant had to face a lot of harassment and inconvenience not only due to cancellation of the flight but also due to the fact that he had to arrange for an alternate flight which cost him much higher and the departure of the son of the complainant, who was to join his course in the University in Winnipeg, also got delayed by 7 days. All this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. The complainant got served a legal notice dated 30.09.2019 but despite that no action was taken. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be made to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant for deficiency of service and for causing mental tension, torture etc.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the written statement filed on behalf of the OPs, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable and the same is without any cause of action. According to the OPs, the complainant was immediately informed about the insolvency of Jet Airways and an email was also sent to the complainant on 15.04.2019 regarding cancellation of the flight. Moreover, the complainant has intentionally not impleaded Jet Airways as a party. In addition to this, the OPs immediately transferred the amount of Rs.58,000/- into the account of the complainant through NEFT on 24.07.2019. Thus, there has been no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit as Ex. CA along with documents Ex- C1 to Ex- C6 and closed the evidence.  

4.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit Ex. OP1/A of Sh. Anand Kishore of the OPs along with documents Ex. OP1 to Ex. OP14 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments advanced by the complainant in person as well as by the counsel for the OPs and have carefully gone through the record.

6.                Admittedly, the complainant booked air ticket of Jet Airways for his son from Delhi to Winnipeg for 16.04.2019 for a sum of Rs.58,000/-. It is also not disputed that the OPs are only the travel agents. The flight slated to leave Delhi for Winnipeg on 16.04.2019 was cancelled as the company called Jet Airways  reportedly went into liquidation having gone bankrupt with the result that all the flights of the said company were cancelled. For the cancellation of the flight with Jet Airways, the OPs, who are simply travel agents, cannot be held responsible. It is also not disputed that the intimation regarding cancellation of the flight was given to the complainant on 15.04.2019. As per statement Ex. OP8, the booking amount of Rs.56,805/- was received by the OPs from Jet Airways on 11.07.2019. After the receipt of the amount, OP1 transferred the amount to the complainant on 24.07.2019. It is worth mentioning that OP1 received a sum of Rs.56,805/- from the concerned Airlines whereas it refunded the entire amount of Rs.58,000/- to the complainant which must have been included the amount of commission also.

7.                The counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the flight was cancelled on 15.04.2019 whereas the refund was made to the complainant on 24.07.2019 after a period of more than three months for which the OPs must be held responsible. It has also been contended by the counsel for the complainant that due to the cancellation of the flight, the complainant had to book another flight of Lufthansa Airlines for a sum of Rs.94,000/- and the said flight allowed lesser baggage than the flight booked for 16.04.2019 which was cancelled. The counsel for the complainant has further contended that it is clear that the complainant was put to lot of harassment and had to spend more money due to cancellation of the flight.

8.                We have thoughtfully considered the contentions raised by the counsel for the complainant and are of the considered view that so far as OP1 is concerned, he cannot be held responsible for the cancellation of the flight. Similarly, if the complainant had to book another flight by spending more money, even for that also OP1 cannot be held responsible. Strangely enough, the complainant in this case has not impleaded Jet Airways as party as the deficiency of service, if any, due to cancellation of the flight has been on the part of Jet Airways and not OP1. Moreover, it is in evidence that OP1 received the refund from the concerned Airlines on 17.07.2019 and after getting the particulars of account from the complainant, he transferred the said amount including his commission on 24.07.2019 i.e. within a week. In this regard, the counsel for the OPs has referred to a text message exchanged with complainant between 16.07.2019 to 23.07.2019 which shows that the complainant send his account number with IFSC code to OP1 on 24.07.2019 and the payment was made to him by OP1 on the same day through NEFT. Therefore, it cannot be said to be a case of deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

9.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

10.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:10.08.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Rajesh Verma Vs Global Travels                           CC/20/22   

Present:       Complainant Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate in person.

                   Sh. Anish Kant Sharma, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   Learned counsel for the OPs closed evidence after tendering affidavit Ex. OP1/A along with documents Ex. OP1 to Ex. OP14.

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:10.08.2022.

Gobind Ram.