STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                          U.T., CHANDIGARH 

                                           (Additional Bench)

Grand Tarvel Planners  Pvt. Ltd, SCO 117-119, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh,     through its Director Mr.Kanwaljit Singh

                                                                                            …Appellant

                                         V e r s u s

1. Onkarjot Singh aged 23 years S/o S. Harjinder Singh R/o H. No.64, Village Dadumajra, U.T., Chandigarh, through his authorized person S. Harjinder Singh.
2. Spicejet Ltd. through its Chief Executive officer 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase IV, Sector 18, Gurugram (Haryana)-122016.

                                                                        .                 .Respondents

Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against order dated 09.02.2023 passed by District  Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.424/2021.

BEFORE:       MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                       Mr.PREETINDER SINGH,MEMBER

Argued by:      Sh.Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

                         Sh.Gurditt Singh Saini, Advocate for respondent No.1

                         Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.2

 PER PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

                     This appeal is directed against the order dated 09.02.2023, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it allowed the complaint bearing No.CC/424/2021 and directed the Opposite Parties  in the following terms;-

 “In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. OPs are directed as under:-

1.     to refund Rs.89625/- (the price of the ticket) to the complainant with interest @9% P.A. from the date of booking of ticket till realization
2.     to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3.     to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.” 

 2.   Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was case of the complainant/respondent No.1 that the complainant booked a ticket of airlines of Opposite Party  No.1/respondent No.2 from Opposite Party No.2/Appellant  from Delhi to Canada  for travel date of 11.9.2020 after paying a total consideration of Rs.89,625/-. It was mentioned in the ticket that the amount paid was non-refundable.   It was averred  that on 11.9.2020 when the complainant alongwith his father went to Delhi to board the flight they received a message on the way from the appellant/OP No.2  that the flight will go on 12.9.2020 instead of 11.9.2020 and the same ticket will be effective. Contrary to that, the complainant received a copy of ticket print (Annexure P-4) showing date of flight as 13.9.2020. It is alleged that when the complainant did not get any satisfactory response or confirmation from the Opposite Parties for the running of flight, under the compelled circumstances, he had to purchase a new ticket from Air-Canada by paying an amount of Rs.1,05,000/- for his travelling with travel date 14.9.2020 from New Delhi to Toronto(Annexure P-5)  and the said fact was intimated to OP No.2 by the complainant and requested it for refund of the ticket booked with it.. Still again on 12.9.2020 the complainant received an airline  ticket through email from OP No.2 for the travel date 14.9.2020  from Delhi to Toronto in Eurontalitic Airways with information that now flight will go on 14.9.2020, a copy of which is Annexure   P-6.  According to the complainant, due to poor services of the Opposite Parties he could not board flight for which he had paid Rs.89,625/- as per the schedule and even 2-3 days thereafter and remained hanged in dicey condition at Delhi  and had to purchase ticket of another airline for which he suffered harassment and mental agony. Hence, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, a consumer complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission.

 3.                Pursuant to issuance of notice, Opposite Parties appeared before the Learned Lower Commission and contested the complaint. Opposite Party No.1 in its reply stated that the  complainant booked the ticket through OP No.2 on 10.9.2020 for travel from Delhi to Toronto on 13.9.2020 in a chartered flight under PNR No. C5K6PL. It is averred that due to COVID 19 the said flight was postponed by one day i.e. instead of 13.9.2020 the said flight re-scheduled for 14.9.2020. It is submitted that all passengers of the said flight including the complainant  were informed about the said schedule change by sending message on the provided mobile number and email address.  The intimation was given to all the passengers including the complainant  on 11.9.2020 at 23:25 hours and in pursuant to receipt of the said intimation all the passengers boarded the flight on re-scheduled timings and date, except two passengers namely complainant and one Subhpreet Singh. The said two passengers were declared ‘no show’ for the said fight resultantly their entire fare was forfeited. It is alleged that the complainant has himself flouted the norms/terms and conditions contained in terms of carriage, and he is not entitled for any relief.  All other allegations made in the complaint were denied and a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint. 

4.                   Opposite Party No.2 in its reply stated that on 10.9.2020 at  9.:58 P.M. the answering OP informed the complainant by sending whatsapp massage on his mobile number that the flight in question was rescheduled for 13.9.2020 at 00.30 a.m. i.e. 14.9.2020, which was acknowledged by the complainant.  It was further stated that  the complainant never informed the answering OP regarding purchase of ticket from Air Canada for 14.9.2020. It  was further stated  that the answering OP raised the matter of refund of the price of the ticket with the OP No.1 but OP No.1 shown its inability to refund the ticket. It was pleaded  that there was no deficiency on the part of OP No.2 as the refund, if any, was to be made by the concerned airlines and not by the answering OP. Denying all other allegation made in the complaint  a prayer was made for dismissal of the Complaint.

5.              On appraisal of the pleadings, and the evidence adduced on record, the Ld. Lower Commission allowed the complaint of Respondent No.1/ Complainant, as noted in the opening para of this order.    

6.         Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Opposite Party No.2.

7.                       We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.

8.                 The controversy involved in this appeal is with regard to liability to pay the amounts awarded by the Ld. District Commission. This appeal has been preferred by Opposite Party No.2, booking agent of airlines tickets and no appeal has been filed by Opposite Party No.1-airline.  There is no denying the fact that respondent NO.1/complainant paid Rs.89,625/- to the appellant for booking a airline ticket from Spicejet airline from Delhi to Toronto on 11.9..2020. There is also no dispute that respondent No.1/complainant was provided a confirmed ticket.  However, the flight booked for 11.09.2020 was rescheduled and was to fly  on 13.9.2020 but respondent No.1 has to purchase another ticket of Air Canada by incurring an amount  of Rs.1,05,000/-. It is further case of the appellant that on receiving email from the complainant on 15.09.2020 it sent an email dated 18.9.2020 asking respondent No.2 to refund the amount of air ticket to respondent No.1 but the Spicejet Ltd. shown their inability to refund the amount of ticket. Thus, it was the respondent No.2- Airline which was to refund the amount to respondent No.1/complainant.  

 9.                The Ld. Lower Commission while allowing refund of air fare rightly observed that   terms and conditions of tickets Annexures P-4 and P-6 show that under clause 28 it is mentioned that in case of postponement of  flight beyond hundred and twenty minutes or more the affected passengers shall be entitled either for full refund of the amount paid by him or to be accommodated alternate flight and as the Opposite Party/Spicejet airline  miserably failed to take timely action by accommodating the complainant in alternative flight rather it kept the complainant in dilemma regarding the confirmed date of flight which is quite apparent from tickets placed on record by the complainant wherein   time and again it intimated different travel timings of the flight to the complainant, which forced the complainant to take services of another airline, so that he may reach his destination on time.  

 10.                  It is case of the appellant that it is running a travel agency and providing air tickets to the travelers on very marginal commission. On receiving the amount from respondent No.1, it provided confirmed air ticket and there was no defect in the ticket. Rescheduling in flight, if any, was on the part of the airline and not on the part of the appellant. Further as any when any information was received from the airline people regarding rescheduling of flight, the same was immediately supplied to the complainant. The request of the complainant seeking refund was forwarded to the airline/respondent No.2 as the refund of air ticket was to be made by the concerned airline but the refund of air ticket was refused stating it non-refundable.

  11.               After going through the contents of  the appeal and the impugned order passed, we are of the view  that   the Ld. Lower Commission rightly ordered refund of the amount alongwith other allied reliefs. The prayer made by the appellant for setting aside the  impugned order dated 09.02.2023 cannot be acceded to in its totality. However, in view of the fact that the appellant was only a commission agent and it issued a confirmed ticket on receiving the amount and there was no defect in the ticket itself,  this Commission is of the view that ends of justice would meet if the impugned order is directed to be complied with by Opposite Party No.1 only  instead of jointly and severally by the Opposite Parties. Since the appellant was only a commission agent  for selling air-tickets of various airlines, it cannot be held  liable for the acts and conduct of the airline - Opposite Party No.1. 

 12.                     In view of the above discussion, this appeal is partly accepted with the modification that the impugned order dated 09.02.2023 of District Commission-I shall be complied with by Opposite Party No.1/Spicejet Ltd. only instead of jointly and severally by the Opposite Parties.

13.            In view of the present Appeal being partly accepted with above modification in the impugned order, the pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.

14.                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

15.                The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.