DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

Complaint Case No : CC/400/2020

Date of Institution : 11.12.2020

Date of Decision : 22.02.2022

1. Krishan Kumar Goyal aged about 71 years son of Pirthi Chand and 

2. Santosh Goyal aged about 71 years wife of Krishan Kumar Goyal.

Both residents of House No. 32, 16 Acre, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala, Punjab. …Complainant

Versus

1. Paul Merchants Ltd., DSM 335-337, 3rd Floor, DLF Tower 15, Shivji Marg, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi-110015 through its MD/Authorized Signatory.

2. PML House (Paul Merchants Ltd.), Corporate Office, SCO 829-830, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh through its MD/Authorized Signatory. 

3. Paul Merchants Ltd., Branch Office, Barnala Opposite Dr. Naresh Hospital, KC Road, Barnala through its MD/Authorized Signatory.

4. Malaysia Airlines Reservation Office Citi Point, B-505, JB Nagar, Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri East Mumbai-400059 through its MD/ Authorized Signatory.

5. Axis Bank Branch Barnala, Near Gadda Khana Chownk, Barnala, Through its Manager.

6. Ish Travel and Tours Pvt. Ltd., having its office at 57, Regal Building, 2nd Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 through its MD/ Authorized Signatory. 

…Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

Present: Sh. Gagandeep Garg Adv counsel for complainant.

Sh. Anuj Mohan Adv counsel for opposite parties No. 1 to 3.

Opposite parties No. 4 and 6 exparte.

Sh. AK Jindal Adv counsel for opposite party No. 5. 

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2. Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member

3. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):

    The complainant Krishan Kumar Goyal and another filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against Paul Merchants Limited, New Delhi and others. (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainants are that the complainants are senior citizens and they have booked two return tickets of opposite party No. 4 through opposite party No. 2 and 3 bearing e-ticket No. 2322680344967 and 2322680344968 to travel from New Delhi to Sydney traveling date 6.4.2019 and Sydney to New Delhi via Kuala Lumpur return traveling date 13.2.2020. All the opposite parties have charged Rs. 1,25,000/- for the said return tickets. On 6.3.2019 the complainant No. 1 has paid Rs. 1,08,000/- to the opposite party No. 2 and 3 from his account with opposite party No. 5 vide cheque dated 16.3.2019 and Rs. 17,000/- in cash. 

3. It is further alleged that due to Covid-19 all the international flights were cancelled and flight booked for the return of the complainants with the opposite party No. 4 was also cancelled. The complainants re-attempt to come back in India by extending their airline tickets from the opposite parties and paid an additional amount of Rs. 11,000/- and opposite parties have issued e-tickets bearing No. 2329571206814 and 2329571206815 for the same. The new traveling dates issued wee 1.4.2020 and 2.4.2020 which again remain of no use due to Covid-19 spread in all world. Thereafter, opposite parties denied to cooperate with the complainants  so complainants have to make alternative arrangement to come back India nad on 15.4.2020 complainants approached to the opposite parties for refund of the total ticket fees paid by them i.e. Rs. 62,500/- return ticket fee and Rs. 11,000/- additional fee of tickets totaling Rs. 73,500/- but with no result. The complainant approached many times to refund this amount but to no effect. They also got issued legal notice dated 5.10.2020 but they denied to refund the ticket fees paid by the complainants, which amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite parties No. 1 to 4 may be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 73,500/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of payment i.e. 16.3.2019 till realization. 

2) To pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment. 

3) To pay Rs. 15,000/- as litigation expenses.  

4) Any other fit relief may also be given. 

4. The opposite parties No. 1 to 3 filed written reply taking legal objections on the grounds that the complainants have no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint. The complainants not approached this Commission with clean hands and concealed true facts. The opposite parties No. 1 to 3 is only a travel Agent and all reservations made through their websites or manually are governed as per terms and conditions of the concerned Airlines i.e. opposite party No. 4. All modifications, cancellations and refunds of the Airline tickets are strictly governed in accordance with the policy of the concerned airlines. The answering opposite parties have no role to play and each customer is governed by the user guidelines and terms and conditions of opposite party No. 4 only. The present complaint is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of parties. The complaint do not fall within the definition of consumer dispute. 

5. On merits, it is submitted that the complainants had booked e tickets No. 2322680344967 and 2322680344968 respectively from New Delhi to Sydney and Sydney to New Delhi via Kuala Lumpur and on the basis of said air tickets the complainants travelled through the Malaysian Airlines. It is denied that answering opposite parties have charged Rs. 1,25,000/- for the said tickets rather the complainants had paid Rs. 1,08,000/- only to the answering opposite parties for booking the said Air Tickets. Further, due to cancellation of international flights to contain the spread of Covid-19 the complainants had extended their journey vide tickets 2329571206814 and 2329571206815 from 13.2.2020 to 1.4.2020 respectively booked by answering opposite party through its vendor Ish Travel and Tours Private Limited, New Delhi. But due to Covid-19 all flights cancelled by opposite party No. 4 and complainants verbally requested the answering opposite parties to refund the amount and they immediately wrote the said vendor email dated 31.3.2020 for the refund of said tickets who stated that it will take time and as per fare rule ticket is non refundable after departure. The answering opposite parties duly informed the complainants about the same. The answering opposite parties finally received a confirmation that opposite party No. 4 rejected the said request. The answering opposite parties informed the complainants vide email dated 13.7.2020 that the opposite party No. 4 instead of providing the refund of the tickets providing a credit shell valid up to 30th June 2021. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite parties and they lastly prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with special costs. 

6. The opposite parties No. 4 and 6 not appeared before this Commission despite service so they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 22.1.2021 and 13.10.2021 respectively. 

7. The opposite party No. 5 also filed written version taking legal objections that opposite party No. 5 is not in the business and complainants account maintained so they are not liable to pay any amount. The complainants not come to this Commission with clean hands and they have no locus standi or cause of action to file the present complaint. The complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties and abuse of process of law.

8. On merits, it is submitted that the complainants themselves purchased tickets from opposite parties No. 1 to 3. The opposite party No. 5 doing the business of banking only. No cause of action arose against the answering opposite party. The complainants are not entitled for any claim against the answering opposite party. Lastly, they prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs against the answering opposite party No. 5. 

9. In support of their complaint, the complainants tendered into evidence affidavit of Krishan Kumar Goyal Ex.C-1, copy of statement of account Ex.C-2, copy of e-tickets Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4, copy of legal notice Ex.C-5, copy of reply of legal notice Ex.C-6, copies of Aadhaar Cards Ex.C-7 and Ex.C-8.

10. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Pankaj Kumar Ex.OP-1.2.3/1, copy of resolution Ex.OP-1.2.3/2, copies of emails dated 31.3.2020 Ex.OP-1.2.3/3, copies of emails dated 13.7.2020 Ex.OP-1.2.3/4, copy of terms and conditions Ex.OP-1.2.3/5, copy of policy notification Ex.OP-1.2.3/6, copy of tax invoice dated 16.3.2019 Ex.OP-1.2.3/7 and closed the evidence. The opposite party No. 5 tendered in evidence affidavit of Khushdeep Tayal Ex.OP-5/1 and closed the evidence. 

11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file. Written arguments also filed by the complainant and opposite parties No. 1 to 3.

12. It is admitted by the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 that the complainants had taken the return tickets through them of Malaysia Airlines as alleged in the complaint. It is further admitted by the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 that due to Covid-19 pandemic the complainants had paid Rs. 11,000/- and extended the return tickets from Sydney to New Delhi from 13.2.2020 to 1.4.2020 and the same was done through the opposite parties No. 2 and 3. It is also admitted by the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 that due to Covid Pandemic all the flights had been cancelled by the opposite party No. 4 and thereafter the complainants verbally requested the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 in the end of March 2020 to refund the amount collected for tickets which was not utilized due to restrictions imposed by the Government of India to contain Covid-19. The same request was forwarded by the opposite parties No. 2 to 3 and the opposite party No. 4 finally rejected the said request by giving the reason that the refund is not permitted referring their circular CW-46 for the alternative options. The opposite party No. 4 also informed that instead of providing the refund of the amount collected for the said tickets the Malaysian Airlines opposite party No. 4 are providing a credit sheel valid up to 30.6.2021. The copies of emails are Ex.OP-1.2.3/3 to Ex.OP-1.2.3/4. 

13. The learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 further argued that the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 are only acting as an Agent of the opposite party No. 4 and the Agent is not liable for anything. He further argued that the agency issuing the tickets cannot be held responsible for any act of omission or commission on the part of International Carrier which is responsible for such an act of omission or commission. The learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 has also produced the judgment titled Girish K. Shah and anr. Versus KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and ors. reported in 2006 (3) CPJ-415 of Hon'ble National Commission and Janta Travels Private Limited Versus Namita Nigam reported in 2002 (1) CPJ-430 of Hon'ble Uttar Pradesh State Commission  vide which the the Hon'ble National Commission and Hon'ble State Commission has also taken the similar view.

14. It is clear from that the opposite party No. 4 admitted through the emails that they have received the amount of Rs. 62,500/- from the return tickets from Sydney to New Delhi and also taken Rs. 11,000/- for extended the return tickets from 13.2.2020 to 1.4.2020. 

15. As per the above discussion, it is established that opposite parties No. 1 to 3 and 6 are acting as an Agent of the opposite party No. 4 and as per law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission and Hon'ble Uttar Pradesh State Commission the complaint qua the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 and 6 is dismissed. The opposite party No. 5 has no concern with the present case as only the payment was given through the bank so there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 5, therefore, the complaint qua the opposite party No. 5 is also dismissed.

16. The opposite party No. 4 i.e. Malaysia Airlines did not bother to appear before this Commission and file written version and proceeded against exparte, but as per emails produced by the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 it is established that the opposite party No. 4 have received the amount for the above said return tickets and also offered alternative option i.e. credit shell valid up to 30.6.2021. Therefore, there is clear cut unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 4.

17. In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed against the opposite party No. 4. Accordingly, the opposite party No. 4 is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 73,500/- to the complainants alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till actual realization. The opposite party No. 4 is also directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- as consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses. The opposite party No. 4 is also directed to pay the above mentioned amounts to the complainants in equal share.   Compliance of this order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        22nd Day of February 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President

              

(Urmila Kumari)

Member

 

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member