ORDER

BY SRI.H.R.SRINIVAS, PRESIDENT.

This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant U/S Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the Opposite Party (herein referred in short as O.P) alleging the deficiency in service in booking return ticket on a wrong date and thereby there is deficiency in service and for refund of Rs.32,833/- being the fare of return flight along with interest at 18% from the date of payment i.e., 11.02.2019 and for Rs.3,00,000/- as damages and compensation for causing mental trauma and agony and for other reliefs as the Commission deems fit.

2.      The brief facts of the complaint are that;

Complainant wanted to visit Singapore along with his wife Smt.Jennifer Paula, aged about 30 years, and his daughter Kum.Ananya Sunil, aged 5 years.  He booked a ticket through OP in Tiger Airways (Now called Scoot) on 11.02.2019, for the return journey from Singapore to Bangalore.  The journey was to take place on 13.04.2019, whereas the booking was done on 11.02.2019 by paying a sum of Rs.32,833/- to OP.  The tickets were issued by OP confirming and depicting the flight departure as 13.04.2019 at 10.20 pm., at Singapore Changi Airport.  After the visit to Singapore, they reached the said airport at 7 pm., Singapore time, to catch the flight at 10.20 pm SST., At the time of handing over the baggage at the checking counter they were informed that the PNR number on the ticket provided by OP is invalid one and the ticket was for the scheduled flight on 13.02.2019.  Afterwards complainant tried to contact OPs agency customer care helpline.  There was no answer from them.  Both the complainant and his wife made several attempts for about two hours to communicate with OP via phone to seek redressal and remedy.  Their calls were left unattended.  They sent emails to the mail box and the same was unanswered.

3.      It is further contended that the complainant and his wife pleaded and requested the scoot flight authorities to provide seat in the said flight scheduled to depart at 10.20 Singapore Standard Time.  They were informed that there was no vacant seat in the said flight.  They were put to trauma and hardship due to the negligence on the part of OP in not booking the return flight properly.

4.      It is further contended that as they could not board the flight on 13.04.2019, the complainant who was having a meeting at 7.30 pm Indian Standard Time on 14.04.2019 at Chennai, could not attend the same.  This has also caused severe mental agony to the complainant and his wife. They were adversely affected and they had to spend overnight in the airport at Singapore and had to book a ticket by paying Rs.48,464/- to come to Bangalore in the Indigo Airlines flight which had to touch Chennai and then to Bangalore, as it was not a direct flight from Singapore to Bangalore,  On 14.04.2019.  Though the flight duration was nearly five hours from Singapore to Bangalore, since the return flight of Indigo Airlines was via Chennai it took eight hours for them to reach Bangalore and had to pay higher ticket price and spending more money.

5.      Since they had to wait for the flight on the next day, they were not equipped with sufficient money to book a hotel room for the said night and they had to spend time outside the airport at Singapore.  Their daughter was worsely affected and tormented.

6.      The entire trauma and suffering by them was due to the inefficiency and negligence on the part of OP in booking the tickets wrongly. They had to make correspondences through email and to issue legal notice by demanding the refund of the expenses incurred and also compensation from OP.  OP accepting their negligence offered to refund the expenses incurred but not compensation which is an eye washing technic to cover their deficiency service.   Inspite of issuing legal notice demanding compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and refund of Rs.32,333/- OP did not meet the demands, and did not pay the amount.  The act of OP amounts to negligence and deficiency in service and hence the complaint.

7.      Upon the service of notice, OP appeared before the Commission and filed the version.   

8.      In the version filed by the OP it has contended that they are not liable to pay the compensation as claimed by the complainant as per the liability clause of the agreement.  It is an intermediary between the complainant (the customer) and the service provider(airlines).  OP is not a supplier and hence not liable for any lack of deficiency of service provided by the supplier.  It also mentioned in the agreement that OP has no liability in the event of any delay, cancellation, over booking strike, force majeure or other causes beyond its control and hence cannot be made liable for any additional expenses incurred by the customers. 

9.      It is further contended in the version that the complainant booked the air tickets in tiger airlines for three person by paying Rs.32,833/-, on 11.02.2019 and also received the ticket for journey dated 13.04.2019.  However due to some error while processing the same, ticket dated 13.02.2019 was generated instead of 13.04.2019.  After correspondences, it agreed to refund the cost of the new tickets i.e., Rs.48,464/- from Singapore to Bangalore and offered its apology for the mistake committed and requested complainants to furnish the bank details so that it can remit the amount of Rs.48,464/- on 03.05.2019.  However complainants refused to receive the same and demanded exhorbitant amount of compensation.

10.    It has admitted the receipt of the legal notice on 16.07.2019 and replied the same and it is also contended that due to server problem in the airline portal, it had to manually confirm the tickets from the airline website.  Due to some error at the time of processing the ticket, the ticket dated 13.02.2019 was generated instead of 13.04.2019, whereas there was no malafide intention.  It was also unaware of the mistake till the same was brought to its notice and when once the same was brought to its notice it duly apologized and offered to refund the amount incurred by the complainant for the return flight and the complainant refused to receive the same and sought for huge compensation.  

11.    It has further contended that as per the decision of the Hon’ble supreme court of India in “Sarala verma and others –vs- Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009)6 SCC 121”, the compensation or damages should be reasonable and should not be a bounty or bonanza or largesse or a source of profit and it should be objective just and reasonable.  By denying all the allegations made against it, it prayed the Commission to dismiss the complaint.

12.    In order to prove the case, complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced documents. Inspite of giving sufficient time to adduce evidence, OP did not adduce evidence and hence the Commission considered that no evidence to be adduced on the part of OP and after hearing the complainant posted the case for orders. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

13.   Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO.1:            In the Affirmative

POINT NO.2:            Partly in the affirmative.

                                For the following.

REASONS

14.   POINT No.1:-

   Perused the complaint, version, affidavit evidence and the documents produced by respective parties.  It is admitted by the OP that complainant booked the ticket on 11.02.2019 for the return flight at 10.20 pm Singapore Standard time on 13.04.2019 from Singapore to Bangalore.  Complainant and his family members were to board the flight well in time on 13.04.2019 to reach Bangalore.  Whereas it is contended that, when they went to the airport for checking in, it was found that the PNR of the complainant ticket was related to the ticket booked for the flight scheduled to fly on 13.02.2019.

        15.   It is also contended by complainant that inspite of trying to contact the OP and its customer care, they could not do it and there was no response from the OP.  Complainant had to suffer the trauma and the inconvenience in the airport and had to catch the flight on the next day by booking the ticket afresh by paying higher price.  It is also contended and documents provided that there was no direct flight from Singapore to Bangalore and they had to book the ticket to Bangalore which was operating via Chennai, by paying Rs.48,464/-

        16.   One can understand the plight of an air passenger who has been denied the boarding and was made to languish in the airport without proper food, rest and sleep and put under mental agony and mental strain.  

        17.   OP has after several correspondences admitted its mistake and offered to pay the amount spent for booking a fresh ticket amounting to Rs.48,464/-.  The offer was made in writing also as per the documents produced and further requested the complainant to provide them the account detail so that the complainant’s money could be returned by OP.  It is also in the correspondences that complainants has not agreed to receive the amount spent by them but wanted compensation for the inconvenience caused.

        18.   It is no doubt true that as pointed above and as per the proverb that “the wearer knows where the shoe pinches” the complainant and family members were put to lot of physical and mental hardship when they were at Singapore airport wherein the authorities i.e., Tiger Airways denied the boarding due to the OP booking the ticket on a wrong date and also complainant and his family members were made to suffer and to languish in the airport as it is contended that they were not having enough money to book a hotel/room for the overnight stay.

        19.   When all these facts and circumstances are taken together along with the decision referred to by the OP regarding awarding compensation and keeping in mind the trauma that the complainant and his family members have undergone, we are of the opinion that besides ordering the OP to refund Rs.48,464/- being the amount spent for purchasing tickets afresh, a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the above suffering and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses if ordered to be paid by OP to the complainant and his family members would be just, proper and reasonable and answer point No.1 in the affirmative and Point No. 2 partly in the affirmative and pass the following;

ORDER

1. Complaint is allowed in part with cost.
2. OP is directed to pay Rs.48,464/- along with interest at 12% p.a., from 13.04.2019 to till payment of the entire amount.
3. OP is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as damages towards causing mental trauma, strain and physical exercision and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses.
4. OP is further directed comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this forum within 15 days thereafter.
5. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

Note:You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this 6^th day of November 2020)

MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Ex P1: Copy of the onward flight details booked through Tiger Airways

Ex P2: Copy of the to show that the ticket is booked by OP on Wednesday 13.02.2019 instead of 13.04.2019

Ex. P3: Copy of the email correspondences

Ex P4: Copy of the Air ticket booked from Bangalore to Chennai and Chennai to Bangalore

Ex P5: Copy of the Air ticket booked on 14.04.2019 in Indigo Airline from Singapore to Bangalore

Es P6: Copy of the email correspondences wherein OP has admitted their mistake and also undertook to refund the booking charges

Ex P7: Copy of the legal notice sent to OP

Ex P8: Postal acknowledgement card

Ex P9: Copy of the reply to the legal notice

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

• NIL -

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

• NIL -

MEMBER                        PRESIDENT