Delhi

New Delhi

CC/776/2012

Monika Patial - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Air India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

04 Jun 2019

ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

                        (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

                                ‘M BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

                                                             NEW DELHI-110001

 

 

 

           Case No.C.C./776/2012                                                     Dated:

           In the matter of:

           SMT MONIKA PATIAL

           W/O Sh. John Anand Patial

R/o 54,, sudershan, CGHS Ltd

82, I.P. EXTn. Patparganj,

Delhi-1100921

                                                                                                            …… Complainant

 

        Versus

AIR INDIA LTD

(Through its M.D. / A.R.)

C/O Safdarjung Air Port,

Aurbindo Marg

New Delhi-110003

 

Also AT

Air India Ltd

E-9 Connaught House,

Connaught Place,

New Delhi - 110001

…….Opposite Party

 

 

 

 

 

                            

H.M. VYAS - MEMBER

 

                                                            ORDER

The complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant alleging that on 13.04.2012, the complainant for herself and her brother blocked two tickets with the OP.  The said blocked tickets were valid till 14.04.2012 till 3:30 PM and would automatically be sold off thereafter if not encashed for Rs. 96,555/-. The visit to Canada by the complainant was to attend their father’s funeral and his rituals to be performed on 16.04.2012 and 17.04.2012.  It is alleged that due to urgency the complainants and her brother reached Air India Office at 12 noon to pay the fair of the blocked tickets.  After waiting   for 45 minutes the complainant and her brother were informed that the said tickets had been sold.  Further, it was informed to them that two tickets were available for flight on 16^th morning for a fare of Rs. 1,14,000/- and Rs. 1,11,000/- respectively( a difference of over Rs. 30,000/-)

Further, it is alleged that at about 4:45 PM the complainant and her brother informed that OP could not give these tickets to complainant and the Air Canada had not confirmed the Toronto-Winnipeg side of trips, so they cannot give these tickets to complainant.  Thereafter, the OP offered two tickets for 14^th night/15^th morning Delhi-Toronto and returned Toronto/ Delhi for 2^nd May for Rs. 95,669/- and Rs. 91,475/-. It is alleged that due to such irresponsible and careless attitude of OP, on reaching Toronto, the complainant and her brother could not get flight to Winnipeg and therefore, they had to take a flight to Ottawa and stayed there in night to catch another flight to Winnipeg in morning. It resulted in an additional cost of Rs. 60,000/- per person spent by the complainant.  The complainant approached the OP and requested to pay additional expenses of Rs. 1,70,000/- for deficiency in service on the part of OP.  The complainant also sent  legal notice dated 27.06.2012 but no reply received. Following prayer has been made :-

1. The Opposite Party to pay Rs. 1,70,000/- which has been spent by the complainant extra as an additional expenses on tickets and accommodation at outside India exclusive from her pocket.
2. The Opposite party to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment, loss of precious time, due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
3. The Opposite Party to pay Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant, as litigation charges.

 OP contested the complaint after service of notice and filed written statement OP version.  It is alleged that the complainant has non-locus standi to file and contest the complaint on behalf of sh. Harold Mohan in representative capacity of the passenger.  All the allegations have been denied however, it is stated that the reservation request for travel of Mr. Mohan Harold and Mrs. Monika Patial on sector Delhi/ Toronto by flight AI 187 on 16/04/2012 ( K class) and by AI 188 Toronto/Delhi on 02.05.2012 ( G class) was made by representative of passenger on 13.04.2012 at 10:09 hours.  Accordingly, the booking was blocked  with opportunity to passengers to buy tickets by 13.04.2012 till 15:48 hours failing which the said booking would be cancelled.  The complainant herself  failed to buy the tickets for the said booking  within stipulated time and as such the booking was automatically cancelled  by the system.  The complainant approached only on 14.04.2014 when the earlier booking made in the lower class had already been cancelled .  Despite giving the opportunity to purchase tickets on 13.04.2012 till 15:48 hours.

The complainant rebooked the tickets of OP office at 19:15 hours on 14.04.2012 for flight no. AI187 and AI188 from Delhi/ Toronto (15.04.2012) and Toronto/ Delhi on 02.05.2012 respectively.  It is also stated that no economy class bookings were confirmed  from 15.04.2012 in the original  PNR and the complainant already requested   for blocking reservation to travel by AI 187 on 16.04.2012 in economy class.  Accordingly, the reservation block was within an advice to the complaint to buy tickets by 14.04.2012 till 15:48 hours.  That block was cancelled as per terms and conditions  and for carriage  of passengers having “ booking time limit under Article 6.2  there off”. It is also stated that OP had informed the complainant about no confirmation of booking by Air Canada and the complainant  booked advance tickets from Toronto-Ottawa- Winnipeg on 14.04.2012 which falsifies the complainants own contention.  In support the OP has filed on record the PNR for blocking the tickets and also showed the advance booking of tickets from Toronto-Ottawa- Winnipeg and showing the dates on 14.04.2012 at 11:17 PM.  All the allegations made against the OP had been categorically denied and prayer to dismiss the complaint has been made.  The complainant filed an application to the reply of the OP and also filed affidavit in evidence.

The OP was given opportunity to file an evidence even  subject to cost  but non appeared on behalf of OP and therefore, the OP evidence was  closed for non appearance  on 02.05.2014. Oral arguments were also addressed by the parties.

We have perused the record and considered the rival submissions of the parties.

The complainant in its application specially in Para C-G i.e. reply to brief facts had denied the contents of the written statement except the matter of record.  The OP had filed the copy of tickets for flight dated 15.04.2012 from Toronto–Canada to Ottawa. The said documents mentions the date of booking on the bottom as 14.04.20121 11:17 PM.  It is also denied by the complainant that the OP informed that the confirmation by Air Canada has not in given and therefore, the tickets could not be provided. 

So far as the issue of alleged sale of tickets blocked by the complainant, even before the permissible  period  up to  14.04.2012 15:48 PM, the complainant  has not placed any document to substantiate that the complainant  reached the OP office before the expiry of the permissible  time to purchase the ticket. In absence of such evidence, we are not inclined to appreciate the contention of the complainant regarding deficiency in service on the part of OP and therefore, the same is declined.

In view of above facts and discussions we do not find any merit in the complaint or deficiency in services on the part of OP and as such as complaint is dismissed with no orders as to cost.

Copy of the order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required. 

Announced in open Forum on 04/06/2019

The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

File be consigned to record room.

,

 

         (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                              PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                            (HM VYAS)

                  MEMBER                                                                          MEMBER