DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, CAMP COURT, AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/2018/376

Date of Institution : 24.05.2018/29.11.2021

Date of Decision : 06.06.2022

Parbodh Chander Bali S/o G.C. Bali R/o 121-A, Krishna Square-II, Batala Road, Amritsar.  …Complainant

Versus

1. The Manager, Amritsar Office, Scoot Tigerair Pte Ltd., through Airport Director, Amritsar International Airport, Rajasansi, Amritsar.

2. The Managing Director, Make My Trip India Pvt. Ltd., DLF Building No. 5, Tower C, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase 2, Sector 25, Gurugram, Haryana-122002, India.

3. Union of India, through The Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Block-B, Safdarjung Airport Area, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057.  

…Opposite Parties

Complaint U/S 12 of The Consumer Protection Act 1986

Present: None for complainant.

Sh. Sanjeet Singh counsel for opposite party No. 1.

Ms. Neena Kapoor counsel for opposite party No. 2. 

Opposite party No. 3 exparte.

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):

    The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant Parbodh Chander Bali filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against The Manager, Scoot Tigerair Pte Ltd., Amritsar and others. (in short the opposite party). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the opposite party No. 1 is an Airlines Company which conducting flights between India and other countries and opposite party No. 2 is booking agent for flights. On 8.2.2018 the complainant got air ticket booked online from Amritsar with opposite party No. 1 to fly on 20.3.2018 from Sydney to Singapore and opposite party No. 1 booked this confirmed air ticket on line and complainant paid 139 USD as payment for this air fare as Rs. 7323.48 through his debit card of ICICI Bank. On 9.2.2018 the complainant got air ticket booked on line from Amritsar with opposite party No. 2 to fly on 22.3.2018 from Singapore to Amritsar on flight of opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 booked confirmed air ticket on line and complainant paid Rs. 7,404/- as payment for this air fare from his debit card. On 20.3.2018 when complainant reached at Sydney Airport to catch the flight of opposite party No. 1 to fly Singapore opposite party No. 1 demanded Advance Visa for Singapore from complainant as an essential condition to allow complainant to board the flight. Complainant tried to convince opposite party No. 1 by showing printed documents on the spot but they illegally denied the boarding of complainant on the ground that complainant was not having advance visa of Singapore. Complainant on the same day sent an email from Sydney airport to opposite party No. 1 through its Indian Head of Operations in India. The opposite party No. 1 replied this email and agreed the fault of opposite party and offered a fresh ticket of 23.3.2018 with a condition that complainant will exonerate opposite party No. 1. Complainant had no option to agree so he signed the letter of exoneration and reached India on 25.3.2018. After arrival on 2.4.2018 the complainant asked opposite party No. 1 to prove the orders of competent authority vide which they denied the complainant at Sydney Airline from boarding flight but they did not supply any document. The act of opposite party No. 1 is defective service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite parties jointly and severally may be directed to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment for deficient service of opposite party No. 1. 

2) To pay compensation to all consumers who suffered through deficient service of opposite party No. 1.

3) To direct opposite party No. 1 to collect Advance Visa Clearance before issuing Air Tickets to its customers.

4) To direct opposite party No. 1 to make public his contact and physical address throughout India on their points of operations.

5) To fine the opposite party No. 1 heavily with order to deposit the fine in Consumer Legal Account.

6) to order any other direction which this Commission consider fit. 

3. The opposite party No. 1 appeared through counsel but not filed any written statement. 

4. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party No. 2 filed written statement taking preliminary objections that it is admitted that the complainant booked Air Ticket through answering opposite party on 9.2.2018 to fly on 22.3.2018 from Singapore to Amritsar against which the answering opposite party provided the complainant confirmed Air Ticket. When complainant could not fly from Sydney to Singapore as alleged in the complaint then no deficiency can be attributed against the answering opposite party in any way. The complainant is claiming compensation and other relief against the opposite party No. 1. The dispute is between the complainant and opposite party No. 1. There is no negligence or deficiency in providing service to the complainant. The complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint against the answering opposite party. 

5. On merits, the opposite party No. 2 submitted that all the paras are related to opposite party No. 1 and do not call any reply from the answering opposite party. Lastly, the opposite party No. 2 prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs. 

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 and 2  and gone through the record on the file. 

7. The complainant alleged in the complaint that he booked one Air Ticket from Sydney to Singapore through opposite party No. 1 for 20.3.2018 and another ticket from Singapore to Amritsar from opposite party No. 2 for 22.3.2018. On 20.3.2018 when complainant reached at Sydney Airport then the representative of opposite party No. 1 demanded advance visa for Singapore from the complainant as an essential condition to allow the complainant to board the flight. The complainant further alleged that he tried to convince the opposite party No. 1 by showing all printed documents that complainant has not required Singapore visa in advance as the complainant is an Indian National and permanent resident of Australia and complainant is also having onward confirmed ticket for 22.3.2018 from Singapore to India but the opposite party No. 1 refused to give in writing at Sydney and denied the complainant for boarding the flight. Thereafter, the complainant sent email to the opposite party No. 1 and opposite party replied the email and agreed the fault of opposite party No. 1. The complainant has produced the email Ex.C-5 which was sent by him to the opposite party No. 1 and in reply to the said email the opposite party No. 1 provide the revised ticket and mentioned in the email that please find the revised ticket attached as well as a form that needs to be signed and handed over to the Airport. It is further mentioned in the said email I will also book Plaza Aerotel Hotel indside the airport for 6 hours on 23rd night under my personal expenses. Please advise if 12 am to 6 am is okay with you. The said email is Ex.CW-6. The opposite party No. 1 also agreed with the same. The complainant himself admitted in the complaint that complainant has signed the letter which was sent by the opposite party being satisfied.

8. The complainant reached India on 25.3.2018 and thereafter the complainant sent another mail to the opposite party No. 1 Ex.C-7 and the opposite party replied the same in which it is mentioned that we have already take corrective action to ensure that no other passenger faces the same situation. Regarding the water our Singapore management is working on it we will update you as soon as possible in reply Ex.C-8. The complainant sent another email to the opposite party No. 1 Ex.C-9. 

9. On the perusal of the record it established that the complainant had admitted the solution provided by the opposite party No. 1 and the opposite party No. 1 provided the revised ticket and stay to the complainant and the complainant himself signed the letter sent by the opposite party No. 1 being satisfied.

10. Therefore, as per the emails and record produced by the complainant on the court file we observed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 2 is only booked the returned ticket from Singapore to Amritsar being agent. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No. 2. 

11. From the above discussion the present complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs or compensation. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties by the District Consumer Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Commission, Amritsar. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        6th Day of June 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President

              

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member