Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/846/2014

Amit Arora - Complainant(s)

Versus

Interglobe Aviation Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Vikram Singh Manhas

28 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/846/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	19/12 /2014
Date   of   Decision	:	28.9.2015

 

 

 

 

 

1.   Amit Arora S/o Sh. Tarsem Lal Arora resident of House No.      130, Sector 12, Panchkula (Haryana).

2.   Naresh Sharma S/o Sh. Bnagmal Sharma resident of House    No.1472, Saini Vihar, Phase-3, Baltana, SAS Nagar, Mohali,    Punjab.

3.   Jaipal S/o Sh. Raghubir resident of Village Ujhana, Tehsil      Narwana, Jind, Haryana.

4.   Permod Kumar r/o House No.2441-A, Mariwala Town, Manimajra, Chandigarh.       

 

….Complainants

Vs.

 

1.   Interglobe Aviation Limited (“Indigo”) having its Local Office at Civil Airport, Chandigarh through Manager, Chandigarh Office, Civil Airport, Chandigarh.

2.   Interglobe Aviation Limited (“Indigo”)  Corporate office: Level 1, Tower C, Global Business Park, M.G. Road, Gurgaon-122 002, Haryana through its Managing Director.

3.   Bajaj Travels Limited SCO 96-97, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.

 

…… Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:   SH. P.L. AHUJA                    PRESIDENT

          MRS.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA          MEMBER

 

 

For Complainants	:	Sh. Vikram Singh Manhas, Advocate
For OP Nos. 1&2	:	Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate
For OP No.3	:	Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate

 

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

 

                The facts, in brief, are that the complainants who intended to visit Bangkok purchased a tour package including air tickets jointly from Opposite Party No.3. The said tour package offered by Opposite Party No.3 included air ticket from Delhi to Bangkok and return journey tickets from Bangkok to Delhi.  It has been pleaded that Opposite Party No.3 being authorized agent of Opposite Party No.2 provided confirmed air ticket of Indigo Airways i.e. Opposite Parties No.1&2. The cost of the tickets was Rs.17,553 and as such the complainants paid an amount of Rs.70,212 for four tickets to Opposite Party No.2  and receipt  Annexure C-1 was issued by Opposite Party No.2. The tickets were confirmed and timings of travel as mentioned in para 5 of the complaint was specified. It has further been pleaded that since the work schedule of the complainants was already decided for 22.8.2014 the complainant planned the entire tour keeping in view this fact that they would reach at Chandigarh in the morning of 22.8.2014. Therefore, the complainants preferred Interglobe Aviation as its timing was suitable for them.   It has been alleged that on 21.8.2014 when the complainants reached at Bangkok airport around 10.00 P.M. to collect their boarding passes from the counter of Opposite Party No.2 at Bangkok they were shocked to know  from the Interglobe authorities  that the flight was cancelled one month earlier for the reasons best known to the Opposite Parties. Since the complainants had to reach Chandigarh to attend their respective assignments, they requested the authorities of Opposite Party No.2 for arrangement of next flight who initially refused to do so and thereafter  issued fresh tickets for another flight at 12.30 AM on 22.8.2014 i.e. after 10 hours.  The complainants requested for accommodation for the stay of 12 hours but they refused to do so as a result thereof the complainants had to hire two taxis and two rooms for their night stay. Even the complainants had to cancel the taxi from Delhi to Chandigarh . As such the complainants had to spend Rs. 21000/- more at Bangkok for reaching home at Chandigarh. It has further been alleged the Opposite Parties failed to provide service as per promise made by them owing to which the complainants had to face a lot of harassment and inconvenience.  The complainants after reaching Chandigarh sought refund of the expenses incurred by them from the Opposite Parties through email dated 23.9.2014 but Opposite Party No.2 vide email Annexure C-2 refused request of refund by the complainants.  Thereafter the complainants vide Annexure C-3 sent legal notice to the Opposite Parties seeking refund of over expenses, who instead of  refunding the same in their reply put the blame on each other and did not redress the grievance of the  complainants. It has further been stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainants, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed seeking various reliefs.

    

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case.
3.      Opposite Party No.1&2 in their joint reply took the preliminary objection that this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction as the tickets were booked from Gurgaon. It has further been stated that the complaint is liable to be dismissed against them as the tour package was booked by Opposite Party No.3 and there was no privity of contract between the complainants and Opposite Parties No.1&2.  The complainants approached the Opposite Party No.3 and made the payment to it and not to the answering Opposite Party. Moreover the answering Opposite Party on 11.8.2014, duly informed the fact of cancellation of flight well in advance before departure of complainants from Delhi on 15.8.2014 at the registered email address provided by Opposite Party No.3 who approached the answering Opposite Party for booking of air tickets.  Even  the answering Opposite Party accommodated the complainants on the next available flight, without charging anything extra. It has further been pleaded that the complainant failed to produce on record any evidence to prove the expenses incurred by them in Bangkok.  It has further been stated, that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the answering Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining allegations, were denied, being wrong
4. Opposite Party No.3 in its reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that the complainant is not maintainable being lack of territorial jurisdiction. It has been pleaded that the complaint has been filed on mere conjecture and surmises and there is no deficiency on the part of the answering Opposite Party. It has further been pleaded that the complainant was duly informed by the Airline that the return flight has been cancelled. It has been denied that Opposite Party No.3 was ever conveyed by Opposite Party No.2 through email about cancellation of flight on 11.8.2014.  Denying all other allegations leveled in the complaint it has been prayed that the complaint be dismissed. 
5.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.
6.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of both the sides.
7.      The case of the complainants is that they took services of OP No.3   for booking tour package including Air tickets of OPs No. 1&2. The main grouse of the complainant is that when they reached Airport at Bangkok they were shocked to know from OPs No.1&2 that the flight was cancelled one month earlier. It has been alleged that OPs failed to provide the services as promised by them, owing to which the complainant had to face a lot of harassment and inconvenience. It has further pleaded that  though OPs No.1&2 arranged fresh tickets on the request of the complainants in another flight but still the complainants had to stay there for 12 hours spending night at a hotel and even they had to cancel the taxi due to the delay, which was hired by them from Delhi to Chandigarh.
8.      The stand taken by OPs No.1&2 is that the present complaint does not fall within the jurisdiction of this Forum as the tickets in question were booked from Gurgaon. It has further been pleaded that the cancellation of the flight was intimated well in advance before the departure of the complainants from Delhi at the registered email address provided by OP No.3 who actually booked the air tickets, in question. It has further been contended that OPs No.1&2 accommodated the complainants on the next flight available without charging anything extra. As far as expenses incurred by the complainants on their stay etc. it has been contended that the complainant have failed to produce on record any receipt pertaining to the expenses allegedly incurred by them in Bangkok.
9.      OP No.3 has urged that it was never intimated by OPs No.1&2 regarding the cancellation of the flight, nor they have produced on record any such documents, therefore it is not liable for any kind of deficiency in rendering service to the complainants.
10.      After going through the documents on record, it is evident from Annexure C-1 wherein address of OP No.3 has been mentioned, which is located at Chandigarh  and who admittedly booked the tickets of the complainants from OPs No.1&2.  Therefore, the plea by OPs regarding territorial jurisdiction stands nowhere and as such a part of cause of action arose to the complainants at Chandigarh. Hence this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint.
11. The next point for consideration is as to whether OPs No.1&2 intimated OP No.3 regarding the cancellation of the flight in question. It is evident from record that these are mere oral assertions of OPs No.1&2 as they failed to produce on record any cogent documentary evidence to prove that they ever intimated regarding the cancellation of the flight to OP No.3. In our considered opinion in the absence of any documentary evidence it cannot be believed that OPs No.1&2 intimated OP No.3 regarding the cancellation of the flight and it(OP No.3) failed to further intimate the same to the complainants. Hence, there is deficiency on the part of OPs No.1&2 and there was no role of OP No.3 regarding intimation of cancelled flight.
12.                 So far as the question of refund of expenses incurred by the complainants due to cancellation of flight is concerned, the complainants have failed to produce on record any document/receipt showing the expenses incurred by them so as to enable this Forum to order refund thereof accordingly.  In the absence of any such receipt/document we cannot pass any order of refund of expenses incurred by the complainants.  However, certainly the complainants had undergone a lot of mental and physical harassment for 12 hours at the Bangkok airport due to the deficient act of OPs No.1&2, which has been admitted by them in their email Annexure C-2 though they (OPs No.1&2) accommodated the complainants in a alternative flight free of charge. As such, OPs No.1&2  are liable to compensate the complainants for their aforesaid deficient act.
13.      In the light of above observations, we are of the considered view that Opposite Parties No. 1&2 are deficient in rendering proper service to the complainants. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainants deserves to succeed. The same is accordingly allowed, against OPs No.1&2. Opposite Parties No.1&2 are, jointly and severally, directed  to:-

 

[a]  Pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainants for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by them.

 

[b]  Pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses.

 

 

14.                 The above said order be complied with by Opposite Parties No.1&2, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr. No.[a] shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the present Complaint, till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs.
15.      The complaint is dismissed against OP No.3 as no deficiency on its part is proved.
16.      The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

 

Announced

28th  September, 2015                                         sd/-

 (P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER