<br /> <br /> SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT., <br /> <br /> Brief facts of the complaint filed by the complainants against the OP are that they booked tickets through Ezeego to a flight of Ops for traveling from Nagpur to Bangalore via Pune in advance on 21-12-2007 with journey date as 26-02-2008. Tickets were confirmed and they were ready to travel on the scheduled day that is on 26-02-2008 from Nagpur to Bangalore. That the 1st complainant was to be in Bangalore on that day in connection with his professional commitment, but they on 19-02-2008 received a call from the OP that Indigo flight which was scheduled to take off on 26-02-2008 is cancelled and if they so wish they could re-schedule the date of journey to 27-02-2008 because of this they were constrained to take alternative mode of conveyance as their presence in Bangalore on 26-02-2008 was necessitated and constrained. Therefore they took Delhi flight on 26-02-2008 from Nagpur to Mumbai and Spice Jet flight from Mumbai to Bangalore and reached Bangalore on 26-02-2008. Further they sent several reminders to OP and also through the agent several times for refund of their ticket money. But the OP has not responded, on the contrary refused to pay their ticket cost and thereby have prayed for a direction to OP to refund ticket money of Rs.6,080/- expenses of Rs.10,000/- incurred on the traveling with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony with miscellaneous expenditure of Rs.20,000/-. <br /> <br /> OP has appeared through their advocate and filed version contending that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of the agent, with whom the complainant booked the tickets. This forum has no jurisdiction as Delhi is the place where any litigation that would arise could be filed. OP further admitting that the complainants had booked tickets and confirmed for flying in their flight with the journey date as 26-02-2008 by paying total consideration of Rs.6,050/- for the tickets. It is contended that on 04-02-2008 the flight scheduled to fly on 26-02-2008 was re-schedule to 27-02-2008 due to operational contingencies. That rescheduled was done well in advance as per the procedure and practice and the complainants were also informed well in advance. It is stated that the complainants were told to travel on 27-02-2008 instead of previous day. The OP therefore for their own reasons due to certain contingencies had to reschedule the flights and it can cancel the bookings and even reschedule the flight. Therefore denying any deficiency at their end has further contended that the complainants are not entitled for any refund of ticket amount except the government taxes amounting to Rs.450/- per passenger which has been refunded to the travel agent on 17-06-2008 and therefore has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and one Manjishtha Chaudhury on behalf of OP have filed their affidavit evidence re-asserting what they have stated in their respective compliant and version. Complainant alongwith the compliant has produced copies of flight tickets booked, confirmation letters and copies of tickets to prove that they on 26-02-2008 travelled in a different flight from Nagpur to Mumbai and from there to Bangalore on the same day. Op has produced a copy of Indigo conditions of carriage. We have heard the counsel for the complainant and perused the written arguments filed by the counsel for the Op. <br /> <br /> On considerations of the above materials, following points for determination arise.<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainants prove that the OP has caused deficiency in their service in not refunding their ticket money after rescheduling journey date from 26-02-2008 to 27-02-2008? <br /> <br /> 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to ?<br /> <br /> Our findings are as under:-<br /> <br /> Point No: 1 in the affirmative.<br /> Point No: 2:see the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS: ANSWER POINT No:1:: Facts which are un-disputed and as narrated above are the complainants booking a flight tickets through an agent called Ezeego to travel in the flight of OP from Nagpur to Bangalore on 21-12-2007 by paying a sum of Rs.6,087/- for travelling on 26-02-2008. The Op sent a cancellation message to the complainants on 19-02-2008 informing the complainants that the flight scheduled to take off on 26-02-2008 is cancelled and rescheduled the date of journey to 27-02-2008. <br /> <br /> It is the grievances of the complainants that they could not post phone the journey day as the 1st complainant being a professional man had professional commitment in Bangalore on 26-02-2008 and he was expected to be in Bangalore on 26-02-2008 and therefore they having had no option traveled from Nagpur to Mumbai and from Mumbai to Bangalore and reached Bangalore on 26-02-2008 in different flights and therefore have contended that the Op caused disruption and mental agony to them and called the cancellation of flight scheduled on 26-02-2008 is deficient and has prayed for refund of ticket money and for compensation. <br /> <br /> Op has contended that this complaint is bad for non-joinder of the agent through whom the ticket were booked who is a necessary party. But we do not find any substances in that contention. Because the Op is not denying that the agent through whom the complainants purchased tickets is their agent. They are also not denying that the tickets money the complainants paid to that agent has reached this Ops and the Ops had not only issued tickets but also confirmed tickets. That being so the agent is not a necessary party for this complaint for its adjudication. <br /> <br /> Coming to their next objection regarding the jurisdiction of this forum, their contention that this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and as per the terms of contract has to be instituted at Delhi cannot be heard. Because the complainants had purchased tickets from an agents of OP at Bangalore who is carrying on his business as such and the OP having its branch at Bangalore in Richmond town, Richmond road this forum has jurisdiction to decide a complaint therefore this objection is also rejected. <br /> <br /> Coming to the merits of the contention raised by the OP they have not only in the version, but also in the affidavit evidence contended that the passengers having accepted the conditions of the carriage applied for booking of tickets are bound by the contractual obligations and therefore have stated that they are entitled to reschedule flights due to operational contingencies and decision of rescheduled of flight was taken well in advance and was also informed to the complainants and thereby contended as if the complainants/passengers are bound by that. The learned counsel appearing for the OP in their written arguments reiterating that stand submitted that OP reserves the right to cancel, reschedule or delay the commencement or continuance of a flight or to alter the stopping place or to deviate from the route of journey etc., etc some times and under the circumstances beyond their control. We do not have a dispute regarding the right of the flights operator to cancel, reschedule, alter the flight time and the flights due to certain contingencies and reasons which are beyond their control. We also agree that the flight operators are bound by the instructions and advice of Airport Authorities under certain circumstances and for certain reasons. But if the flight was rescheduled, cancelled for any such interruptions it is the duty of the flight operators to give that reason to the passenger/passengers reasons for which the flight is rescheduled or cancelled. In the course of arguments we even suggested to the counsel for the OP whether in the given case the Op can give us the reasons for rescheduling the flight from 26-02-2009 to 27-02-2009, but the counsel was not in a position to tell the forum as to for what reason the scheduled flight was rescheduled. Therefore merely because the flight operators say that they were under certain contingencies and operational instructions to cancel the flights cannot take advantage of it and act arbitrarily in rescheduling the flights. Without disputing such right rescheduling, cancelling etc is the inevitable circumstances. We insist that OP shall assign valid reasons in certain contingencies. But the OP in is reasons has not assigned any valid reasons not come up with any reasons. In the case on hand the OP absolutely have not placed any materials or reasons before us that the flight of 26-02-2008 was rescheduled to 27-02-2008 for particular reason/reasons. Even if the OP rescheduled the flight for any such exigencies and after found that this complainants were required to travel on 26-02-2008 itself, it was their duty to see that they are accommodated and the mode to travel on the scheduled day by some alternative arrangement. But on the contrary they compelled them to travel on the next day, which cannot be imposed by the OP because it is the prerogative or need of the parties to travel on the scheduled day for their own reasons and it cannot be the choice of the flight operators or any other transporting authorities. The complainants therefore in order to be present in Bangalore on the scheduled day found to have traveled from Nagpur to Mumbai and from there to Bangalore which has not been disputed by the Ops. Under these circumstances when the complainants sought for refund of tickets money, OP could not have refused and refusal is nothing short of un-fair trade practice. The learned counsel appearing for the OP by relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme court rendered in Civil appeal No: 4366 and 6063 of 1999 decided on 01-12-2004 submitted that interpreting documents relating to a contract of insurance, the duty of the court is to interpret the words in which the it is expressed by the parties because it is not for the court to make a new complaint, however reasonable if the parties have not made it themselves and in another decision of the Hon’ble supreme court delivered in Civil appeal No: 2682/1982 dated 13-03-1989 regarding jurisdiction of a court to try a case, in that case the Hon’ble Supreme court has held if two or more competent courts which can entertain a suit then the parties to the complaint may agree to vest jurisdiction in one such court to try their dispute. Both this decisions are not applicable to the facts of the case is our humble view. The fact that there is no question of interpretation of compliant has arisen or any agreement of vesting in the jurisdiction of any court between the parties. OP in our view has caused deficiency in his service in not refunding the tickets money and therefore we answer point No:1 in the affirmative and hold that the complaint is to be allowed and pass the following order. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaint is allowed. Op is directed to refund Rs.6080/- to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order. <br /> <br /> OP shall also pay compensation of Rs.5000/- to the complainants considering they are the senior citizens were put to inconvenience and mental agony and that amount shall be paid within 60 days from the date of this order. <br /> <br /> OP is directed to pay those amounts within the period fixed above failing which he shall pay interest @ of 10% per annum from the date of this order till the date of payment. <br /> <br /> Lastly the OP shall also pay cost of Rs.2000/- to the complainant. <br /> <br />