DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA

C.C. No. 389 of 13-09-2013

Decided on 28-04-2014

Jagdeep Singh Chauhan aged about 54 years, S/o Sh. Chand Singh, R/o H. No. 16426, Street No. 17/1-B, Guru Gobind Singh Nagar, Bathinda.

…...Complainant

Versus

M/s. Mukhi Telecom, Bibi Wala Road, Opp. DAV College, Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Partner

M/s. Guru Kirpa Travels, B-IV, 2200, Daresi Road, Ludhiana through its Proprietor/Partner/Director Shri Inder Juneja

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member

Sh. Jarnail Singh, Member

For the Complainant : Sh. Sandeep Baghla, counsel for the complainant.

For the opposite parties : Sh. Navdeep Singh, counsel for opposite party No.1.

Opposite party No. 2 exparte.

O R D E R

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT

The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). In brief, the case of the complainant is that he intended to visit Russia, so he alongwith his son Arshdeep Chauhan visited opposite party No. 1 for purchasing the Air Tickets for Mocow, Russia, in the last week of May, 2013. The opposite party No. 1 represented the complainant that he is the agent of opposite party No. 2 and shall get the tickets through his principal i.e. opposite party No.2, to which the complainant and his son bonafidely believed. The complainant accordingly paid to opposite party No. 1 a sum of Rs. 3,96,770/- on 30-5-2013 for three tickets of return trip from Delhi to Moscow and return journey from Moscow to Delhi of business class and one ticket of business class from Moscow to Delhi respectively. The complainant alleged that opposite party No. 1 had received the said amount on behalf of opposite party No. 2 and accordingly issued an invoice No. 25 for Rs. 3,96,770/-. As per invoice, the opposite parties charged a sum of Rs. 1,18,620/- for each ticket of business class for round trip to Moscow and Rs. 40,910/- for one way ticket of business class from Moscow to Delhi. Accordingly, the opposite parties issued the air tickets in the name of complainant and his family members of Aeroflot Russian Airlines as detailed below and the complainant bonafidely received the tickets believing the same to be of business class category :-

Name Date of flight from Date of flight from Moscow

Delhi to Moscow to Delhi

Jagdeep Singh Chauhan 4-7-2013 12-7-2013 (Business Class)

Arshdeep Chauhan 26-6-2013 12-7-2013 ( - do - )

Amarjeet Chauhan 26-6-2013 12-7-2013 ( - do - )

Jeevan Jyot Chauhan - 12-7-2013 ( - do - )

The complainant alleged that on 26-6-2013, when Arshdeep Chauhan and Amarjeet Chauhan had gone to Delhi Airport for boarding the flight to Moscow from Aeroflot Russian Air Lines, it has been disclosed by the staff of the said airlines that the tickets being carried by them were of economy class and not of business class. The complainant and his family members tried to contact the opposite parties on telephone, but they had evaded to the same and consequently, the family members of the complainant had to board the flight in Economy class as per the boarding pass. The complainant alleged that he tried to contact the opposite parties for the issuance of business class tickets to him as he had to travel on 4-7-2013, but the opposite parties had negated to do so and ultimately, the complainant had also to board flight of the said Air Lines i.e. Aeroflot in the economy class category. The complainant and his family members had to board the return flight from Moscow to Delhi on 12-7-2013 and travel in the economy class. The passengers of business class can carry luggage of unlimited weight and the complainant and his family members had carried the extra luggage bonafidely believing that they were traveling in business class. Due to extra luggage, the complainant and his family members had to bear extra expenses for carrying extra luggage. The complainant further alleged that after returning from Moscow, the complainant had been repeatedly approaching the opposite parties to refund the difference of the Air fare of the business class and economy class and also to pay the amount borne for the weight of luggage, but to no effect. On the insistence of the complainant, the opposite party No. 2 sent an e-mail to Arshdeep, son of the complainant from which it was clear that the return ticket costed a sum of Rs. 38,429/- each and the ticket of Jeewan Jyot Chauhan single trip costed Rs. 26,074/-. The complainant further alleged that in this way, the opposite parties had duped the complainant and charged from him an extra sum of Rs. 1,41,361/-. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 1,41,361/- charged in excess plus Rs. 13,000/- i.e. 6450 Rubles borne by the complainant owing to the extra weight of luggage alongwth compensation and cost.

The opposite party No. 1 filed its written statement and took legal objection that no cause of action has arisen at Bahinda, as such, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this complaint. It has been pleaded that opposite party No. 1 is neither agent of opposite party No. 2 nor has any link or concern with the same. The complainant or his son Arshdeep Chauhan never visited opposite party No. 1 nor the opposite party No. 1 deal in sale of air tickets. The opposite party No. 1 has further pleaded that no amount much less Rs. 3,96,770/- was paid by the complainant to opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 1 has only been impleaded to get the matter decided from this Forum otherwise no cause of action arose at Bathinda. The opposite party No. 1 neither has any connection with opposite party No. 2 nor deals in such like business.

Registered A.D notice of complaint was sent to opposite party No. 2 twice, but the same were received back undelivered with the report of the postal authorities as 'refused', meaning thereby that the opposite party No. 2 intentionally evading the service. Since none appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2, exparte proceedings were taken against it.

Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

In the case in hand, the allegation of the complainant is that he got the tickets booked for business class and had paid the business class charges to opposite party No. 2 which was paid by the complainant through opposite party No. 1 who had deposited the amount in the account of M/s. Flight Raja Pvt., who is distributor of the tickets, but the air tickets issued to the complainant were of economy class. The submission of the learned counsel for the complainant is that the complainant had no option but to travel in the economy class and he had also borne the extra charges for the luggage i.e. 6450 Rubles whereas in the business class, the complainant would have carried unlimited weight.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 denied all the allegations of the complainant by stating that neither the opposite party No. 1 is the agent of opposite party No. 2 nor the complainant visited opposite party No. 1 for purchasing air tickets in question for Moscow Russia nor it has received any amount for purchasing air tickets from complainant.

A perusal of file reveals that Invoice Ex. C-2 for Rs. 3,96,770/- has been issued to the complainant for an amount of Rs. 3,56,860/- by opposite party No. 2 for three business class round trip tickets in the name of Mrs. Amarjeet Chauhan, Mr. Arshdep Chauhan and Mr. Jagdeep Singh Chauhan and one economy class one way ticket for Ms Jeevan Jyoti. Ex. C-8 is the deposit slip vide which an amount of Rs. 3,56,860/- has been deposited in account of F R T. Pvt. Ltd., i.e. Flight Raja Travels Pvt. Ltd., by opposite party No. 1 and statement of account of M/s. Flight Raja Travels Pvt. Ltd., produced on file by the ICICI bank on the request of the complainant, proves deposit of said amount. The complainant in his affidavit Ex. C-9 has deposed that the opposite party No. 1 had deposited the amount in the account of M/s. Flight Raja Travels with ICICI Bank on behalf of opposite party No. 2 as the tickets had to be sold by the said company being dealer to the said tickets and jointly carrying the business of travel agency with opposite party No. 2. The complainant received e-tickets vide Ex. C-3 to Ex. C-5. The complainant in his affidavit Ex. C-1 had deposed that the ground staff of the said Air Lines disclosed to the family members of the complainant that all the tickets issued were of economy class and not the business class. The complainant has further deposed that his son Arshdeep had also telephonically requested the opposite parties from Moscow to upgrade the tickets to business class as they had paid for the same, for the return flight from Moscow to Delhi, but the opposite parties negated to do so.

The complainant has placed on file a copy of e-mail Ex. C-6 i.e. details of the amount charged towards economy class tickets which shows that return ticket costed Rs. 38,429/- and one single trip ticket of Jeewan Jyot Chauhan costed Rs. 26,074/-. A perusal of this document reveals that end the end of this document it has been mentioned :-

“ 3 Pax Rs. 67,527 * 3

1 Pax Rs. 39,816 * 1

S. Tax Rs. 2,250

Total : 2,44,647/-

As discussed above, as per Ex. C-8, an amount of Rs. 3,56,000/- has been deposited against the tickets so issued to the complainant whereas as detailed above, total cost of tickets is Rs. 2,44,647/-. Hence, an amount of Rs. 1,11,353/- has been charged in excess by the opposite parties.

The complainant has claimed that he had also borne the extra charges for the luggage i.e. 6450 Rubles although in business class, he would have carried unlimited weight, but the complainant has not placed any evidence on file to show that in business class, unlimited weight is allowed.

So for as legal objection taken by opposite party No. 1 that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint is concerned, it is not tenable as the tickets were purchased through opposite party No. 1 i.e. agent, payment was deposited in ICICI Bank, Bathinda and tickets were received through electronic mode at Bathinda. The Hon'ble State Commission, U.T. Chandigarh, in the case titled 2010 (1) RCR (Civil) 170 Manmohan Lal Sarn, Senior Advocate Vs. M/s. Emirates, New Delhi, has held :-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 17(2)(C) – Jurisdiction – Air tickets purchased from Delhi Company – Purchasers of Air tickets made payment at Chandigarh through credit card – Air tickets received at Chandigarh through electronic method – Part of cause of action had arisen at Chandigarh as tickets were purchased at Chandigarh through internet and payment was made at Chandigarh – Commission at Chandigarh has got territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint”

In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted with Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and cost against both the opposite parties. The opposite parties are directed to refund Rs. 1,11,353/- charged in excess from the complainant.

The compliance of this order be made jointly and severally by the opposite parties within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

In case of non-compliance within the stipulated period, the amount of Rs. 1,11,353/- will yield interest @9% p.a. till realization.

A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs and the file be consigned to the record.

Pronounced in open Forum

28-04-2014

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

(Jarnail Singh )

Member