State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Qatar Airways Group Q.C.S.C vs Mrs. Anita Nagpal And Ors. on 22 March, 2024
FA/647/2023 D.O.D.:22.03.2024
QATAR AIRWAYS GROUP VS ANITA NAGPAL.
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 04.12.2023
Date of hearing: 14.02.2024
Date of Decision: 22.03.2024
FIRST APPEAL NO.-647/2023
IN THE MATTER OF
M/S QATAR AIRWAYS GROUP Q.C.S.C.
Through its Authorized Representative
Mr. Bennet Michael Stephens, Regional Manager ISC
Having its Regional Office at
Ground Floor, Bajaj Bhawan, Nariman Point,
Opposite Inox Cinema, Mumbai-400 021
(Through: Mr. Akash Kadkade, Advocate)
(Appellant)
VERSUS
1. MRS. ANITA NAGPAL.
R/o 92, Jagdamba Apartments,
Sector-13, Rohini, Delhi 110085
Also having address at
Klenthous Street
Athina-10674
Athens, Greece ...Respondent No.1
2. MS. MEDHA NAGPAL ...Respondent No.2
3. MASTER BHOOMSH NAGPAL ...Respondent No.3
4. MR. GAGAN NAGPAL
All R/o 92, Jagdamba Apartments,
Sector-13, Rohini,
Delhi-110085 ...Respondent No.4
5. MR. VIKRAM SINDWANI
S/o Mr Chaman Lal,
R/o, 1994, Rani Baugh, Delhi-110085 ...Respondent No.5
(Through: Mr. Nitin Mangla, Advocate)
...Respondents
DISMISSED PAGE 1 OF 16
FA/647/2023 D.O.D.:22.03.2024
QATAR AIRWAYS GROUP VS ANITA NAGPAL.
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present: Mr Akash Kadkade, counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Nitin Mangla, counsel for the respondent.
PER :HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,
PRESIDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:
"...The present complainant has been filed under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the Opposite Party alleging deficiency of services. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant no.1 has her permanent residence at 92, Jagdamba Apartment, Sector -13,Rohini Delhi- 110085. She is currently posted at Athens, Greece. The present complaint is being instituted by complainant no. I through her husband and power of attorney holder - Complainant no. 4, who has been duly authorized to institute the instant complaint for and on behalf of the complainant no. 1.
2. The complainant nos. 2 & 3 are the minor son and daughter of the complainant nos. 1 & 4. The said complainant nos. 2 & 3 are being represented through complainant no. 4 being their father/ guardian in the present complaint. The complainant no. 5 is the brother of the complainant no. 1. On November 30, 2020 the complainant no.1 booked return flight tickets through the account of complainant nos. 4 & 5 for travelling between the destinations Athens and New Delhi via Hamad International Airport, Doha, Qatar from the period December 2, 2020 to December 27, 2020 for the following three passenger:
(1) Mrs. Anita Nagpal (complainant no. 1) DISMISSED PAGE 2 OF 16 FA/647/2023 D.O.D.:22.03.2024 QATAR AIRWAYS GROUP VS ANITA NAGPAL.
(11) Ms. Medha Nagpal (complainant no. 2)
(iii) Master, Bhoomish Nagpal (complainant no. 3)
3. The aforesaid tickets were booked by the complainant no. I from the online portal of the opposite party The brief itinerary of the aforesaid travel is reproduced below:
FLIGHT FRO T DATE DATE OF
NO. M O OF ARRIVAL
DEPART
URE
QR20 ATHE DOH 02.12.202 02.12.2020
4 NS A 0 (17:45)
(12:40)
QR57 DOH NEW 02.12.202 03.12.2020
8 A DEL 0 (02:05)
HI (20:00)
QR57 NEW DOH 27.12.202 27.12.2020
9 DELHI A 0 (05:50)
(03:40)
QR20 DOH ATHE 27.12.202 27.12.2020
3 A NS 0 (11:10)
(07:15)
4. A total sum of Rs.2,01,811/- was paid by the complainant towards the aforesaid booking. However, no details or breakup qua the individual fair of the aforementioned four flights was shared with the complainant, as alleged.
5. It is stated by the complainant that following the aforesaid itinerary, on December 2, 2020 the complainant no. I came to New Delhi along with her minor children. However, prior to their proposed departure through return flight on December 27, 2020, the complainant no. 1 received intimation via three separate emails on December 7, 2020 DISMISSED PAGE 3 OF 16 FA/647/2023 D.O.D.:22.03.2024 QATAR AIRWAYS GROUP VS ANITA NAGPAL.
from the opposite party regarding the rescheduling of the complainant and her children's aforesaid Flight no. QR579 from New Delhi Indira Gandhi International Airport (Qatar) stating it to be delayed by several hours. The complainant states that on account of the said delay, Complainant no. I's connecting Flight no. QR203 from Doha Hammad International Airport (Qatar) to Athens International E Venizelos Airport (Athens) originally scheduled for December 27, 2020 at 7:15 would have also got missed and therefore she was left with no other alternative but to reschedule her connecting Flight no. QR203 for the next day i.e. December 28, 2020.
Detail pertaining to the renewed schedule of flight is tabulated herein:
QR N DO 27.12. 27.12.2020 579 E HA 2020 (05:50) W (03:40 D ) E L H I QR203 DOHA NEW 27.12. 27.12.2020 DELHI 2020 (11:10) (07:15 )
6. It is further stated by the complainant that the aforesaid request was duly accepted by the complainant no. I on account of reputation and goodwill that Qatar Airways (opposite party) claimed to enjoy and also because of the assurance given by the opposite party to the effect that the complainant no. I shall not bear any future inconvenience and/or monitory loss or shall not have to spend any further expenses for her journey from New Delhi Indira Gandhi DISMISSED PAGE 4 OF 16 FA/647/2023 D.O.D.:22.03.2024 QATAR AIRWAYS GROUP VS ANITA NAGPAL.
International Airport to her final destination i.e. Athens International E Venizelos Airport.
7. However, on December 23, 2020 i.c., only 4 days prior to the boarding of flight from New Delhi to Doha, the complainant no.1 was shocked to learn about the cancellation of both of her aforesaid flights by the Opposite party vide three separate Emails citing 'operational reasons'. As per the email, a total sum of Rs. 78,646/- (i.e. for all the three passengers) was transferred in the account of the complainants towards the said cancellations. It is also stated that, no break up qua this amount of Rs. 78.646/ was shared with the complainants. The complainants dispute the calculation of the aforesaid amount as the total amount of refund should ideally be Rs.1,00,905/10 50% of the amount paid by them for the subject bookings, more so when no break up qua individual tickets were shared with them
8. The complainant submits that on account of complainant no. I's employment obligations, she had to report back of duty office on 30.12.2020 at Athens, Greece. The complainant no. 1 thus was left with no other choice but to book another flight and since the opposite party was not operating any other flight, a booking for her return journey from New Delhi to Athens was made through Lufthansa Airways for the same date Le. 27.12.2020 for the same set of passengers through her husband. complainant no. 4's account. For the said air tickets, she paid a total sum of Rs.1,51,032/-, Since that booking was made last minute, the complainant no. I had to bear an additional cost of Rs.72,386/-. The said amount of Rs.72,386/- has come after having adjusted the refund amount of Rs.78,646/- from the new booking sum of Rs.1,51,032/-.
9. The complainant submits that in view of the global crises, the complainant no. I would never have opted to travel through air alongwith her minor children had it not been for the purpose of performing last rites of her father here in DISMISSED PAGE 5 OF 16 FA/647/2023 D.O.D.:22.03.2024 QATAR AIRWAYS GROUP VS ANITA NAGPAL.
India. Also, it is on account of this current situation that she had booked the connecting flight with minimum possible halt/ stay at Doha, Qatar. Thus it is argued that the complainants had to bear not just unwarranted hassles and inconvenience but the financial losses also on account of the abrupt and last minute cancellations of complainant no. I to 3's flights by the Opposite party who acted in the most unprofessional manner which resulted not just in the mental harassment of the complainants but also led to financial losses to them. It is thus argued that this is a clear case of deficiency of service on part of the opposite party wherein they have failed to provide the alternate flights or bear burden of it. It is further argued that the opposite party has caused considerable anguish and distress to the complainants for which following set of claims are being raised by the complainants:-
CLAIMS AMOUNT(INR)
Claim towards additional Rs. 72,386/-
amount paid for purchase
of the ticket from
alternate airlines.
Claims towards damage Rs. 5,00,000/-
suffered on account of the
mental
harassment/hardship
caused to the
complainants.
Total Rs. 5,72,386/-
10 The complainant that in view of the aforesaid circumstances he Complainant No. I was constrained to issue a Legal Demand Notice of January 7, 2021 to the Opposite Party asking them to pay a sum of Rs. 3,72,186 towards aforesaid claims raised by her, However, the opposite party did not to respond to the said legal notice DISMISSED PAGE 6 OF 16 FA/647/2023 D.O.D.:22.03.2024 QATAR AIRWAYS GROUP VS ANITA NAGPAL.
11 Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint case with the prayers that (1) directions be issued to the Opposite Party to pay the differential amount of Rs. 72,386/- paid by the Complainants for the purchase of the air tickets from the alternate airlines i.e. Lufthansa Airways, with interest 18% p.a. on the aforesaid sum of IRs. 72,386/- from the date it became due till its realization; (2) the opposite party be directed to pay the Complainants an amount of Rs, 5,00,000/- as compensation and damages caused on account of the mental agony and harassment and distress suffered by the Complainants because of the misdeeds, unfair trade practice and gross deficiencies in services rendered by the Opposite Party; and (3) cost of the present complaint may also be awarded in favour of the Complainant and against the Opposite Party.
12. On receipt of notice of the present complaint, the opposite party has filed its reply/written statement. The reply/submissions of the opposite party in brief are as under:
1) It is submitted by the Of that the answering opposite party came on its activities in the Republic of India in strict compliance of the laws of the Republic of India (including international res conventions and protocols as mandatorily applicable within the Republic of India). In the present case, the flight was cancelled due to operational reason and the refund has been processed as per the cancellation policy
(ii) The complainant has deliberately engaged in fraudulent conduct and now seeks opportunistic monetary gains under the guise of exercising their purported rights under the law.
The complaint now seeks to blame the answering opposite party for the personal acts and omissions of subject
(iii) The present case is finally hit by the lacunae of Non- joinder of necessary and proper parties such as the Government of India and Airport Authority of Indira Gandhi DISMISSED PAGE 7 OF 16 FA/647/2023 D.O.D.:22.03.2024 QATAR AIRWAYS GROUP VS ANITA NAGPAL.
International Airport for the reason that such parties presence in the present case would have rendered the present complaint vexatious on the face of it and untenable in the fact or law. Hence, the present case ought to be dismissed for malafide and vexatious non-joinder of necessary and relevant parties
(iv) That the answering opposite party submits that various Airlines (including Answering opposite party) are governed by the various International Convention, treaties, protocols etc, including 'Warsaw Convention to which the republic of India is a party.
(x). It is submitted that on 25th March 2020 all domestic and international flights were shut due to the Covid-19 pandemic situation in India and a complete nationwide lockdown was underway. All domestic and international airlines were banned from operating any scheduled/commercial flights.
(xi) That the complainant/passenger has a travel history from Athens (ATH) to New Delhi (DEL) via Doha (DOH) on 2nd December 2020 and 3 December 2020, has used the one way ticket and also having their return journey on 27th December 2020 from New Delhi (DEL) to Athens (ATH) via Doha (DOH) the flight. The passenger has travelled on 2nd December 2020 and 3rd December 2020 from Athens to Doha to New Delhi in flight no. QR 204 and QR 578 respectively so one way ticket was utilized by them. (xin) That the Flight was cancelled due to an operational issue, that was beyond the control of the opposite party and the same was informed to the complainants vide email dated 23rd December 2020. It is submitted that the complainants were given three options:
a) Hold on to your ticket: Keep your ticket open and use it when you are ready with our DISMISSED PAGE 8 OF 16 FA/647/2023 D.O.D.:22.03.2024 QATAR AIRWAYS GROUP VS ANITA NAGPAL.
extended 2 years ticket this applies for fully unutilized tickets. A maximum validity of twelve months applies for partially used tickets, for any changes on or after 01 January 2021 ticket fare rules shall apply.
b) Exchange for future travel: You can exchange your ticket for a future travel voucher with 10% additional value vouchers are now valid for 2 years from the date of voucher issuance. We will issue the travel voucher within 48 hours.
c) Refund your ticket: We will refund your ticket to the original form of payment. It may take up to 30 days to process your refund request.
(xiv) The complainant has selected option - refund. Thus the opposite party refunded Rs.27,452/- under PNR no. 05MMEU, Rs.27,452/- under PNR no. NWXG23 and Rs.23,742/- under PNR no. 06TVEW upon cancellation request made by the complainant.
(xv) Breakup of the calculation of payment without deduction of cancelation charges as there was a return ticket booked and one way ticket was used by the complainant, ticket of one way and one way tax has been refunded.
(xvi) The opposite party is not liable for any claims which pertain to rebooking of the flight by the said complainant with some other airline on their own. The opposite party has processed the refund for the payment made by the complainant as per cancelation policy."
DISMISSED PAGE 9 OF 16
FA/647/2023 D.O.D.:22.03.2024
QATAR AIRWAYS GROUP VS ANITA NAGPAL.
2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 04.07.2023, whereby it held as under:
".... We have heard the parties and gone through the record of the present complaint case including the evidence led by the parties. In the written statement as also in the evidence, the opposite party has taken a stand that the flight was cancelled for 'operational reasons. No such evidence has been brought on record that the flight was cancelled as it was beyond the control of the opposite party. It simply mentioned that it has been cancelled due to operational reason but operational reason has neither been explained nor any evidence in this regard been brought on the record. If operational reasons are due to negligence on the part of airline or due to some deficiency on the part of airline then the airline is not exempted nor escape from the liability of cancellation of flight. This Commission is not convinced with this argument of the OP that it could not operate due to operational reason. Had the opposite party taken a plea that due to things beyond its control, which are duly established/proved on record, it had to cancel the flight, this Commission might have considered but simply saying that due to operational reason, the flight could not take off is to ground and it cannot be accepted.
. The second argument of the opposite party is that due to circular No 4/1/2020 dated 26th November, 2020 travel and visa restrictions were extended/suspended and all International Scheduled flights were suspended till 31"
December, 2020. This argument has no force for two reasons- (1) If such a circular was there why the opposite party booked tickets of the complainant which were done four days after issuance of the said circular i.e. on 30th November, 2020; and (2) if the flight was cancelled due to the aforesaid circular, the opposite party need not to take DISMISSED PAGE 10 OF 16 FA/647/2023 D.O.D.:22.03.2024 QATAR AIRWAYS GROUP VS ANITA NAGPAL.
the plea of 'operational reason' it should simply say that due to the restrictions imposed by the Government of India, it could not operate. Moreover, the opposite party, though taken a plea of its inability due to circular, but it has not placed the same on record.
15. The third argument of the opposite party is that the present complaint is fatally hit by the lacunae of non-joinder of necessary and proper parties such as the Government of India and Airport Authority of Indira Gandhi International Airport. Again this argument has no limb to stand. The opposite party is attempting to shift the burden of liability on the other agencies who have no role in operation of its flight, particularly in this case. The opposite party has failed to show any reason as to why any of the said entities are required to be made a party in the present complaint
16. The fourth and the last argument of the opposite party is that the complainants were given various options when the flight was cancelled by the opposite party and the complaints could have availed the best one. To this the answer or the counter arguments of the complainant is that she could not have chosen the first two options so offered by the opposite party as the same were arbitrary and impractical for them. Due to covid-19 there were global crises and the complaint No. I would never have opted to travel through air alongwith her minor children for any period thereafter atleast till the situation would have got better. Further, it is argued that she would not have travelled to India, had it not been for the purpose of performing last rites of her father. It is argued that on account of complainant Nos. I's employment obligation, she had to report back on duty/office on or before 30th December, 2020 at Athens, Greece. Under these compelling circumstances she could not have waited for a year or so as offered by the opposite party, more so, when she was not supposed to travel during the proposed one year period.
DISMISSED PAGE 11 OF 16
FA/647/2023 D.O.D.:22.03.2024
QATAR AIRWAYS GROUP VS ANITA NAGPAL.
Further, it is argued that there was no assurance from the opposite party as the OP itself stated in options that only changed ticket fare rules shall apply after 1 January 2021, rending the said options literally ineffective. The complainant state that as regards the refund so credited in the account of the same has been disputed by the complainants. The complainant that the OP has not provided the option of alternate flight as has been stipulated as the mandatory option in the Passenger Charter issued by the Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India which was applicable to all airlines. Thus the OP has no authority or right to force the complainants to accept the arbitrary refund against the tickets. We do not find any force on this argument of the OP too.
17. After considering the evidence on record and the arguments of the parties, we are of the view that that the complainant is entitled to be compensated This Commission, therefore, directs the opposite party to pay the differential amount of Rs. 72,386/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of purchase of ticket till realization. This Commission further directs the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the complainant for mental agony, harassment and distressed suffered by her and her family members. The complainant shall also be entitled to litigation expenses from the opposite party, which is quantified to Rs. 25,000/ The sum as above awarded shall be paid by the opposite party within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant shall be entitled to interest at the enhanced rate of 12% per annum from the date of payment till realization."
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the Appellant has categorically challenged the observation recorded by the District Commission that "No such evidence has been brought on record that the flight was cancelled as it was beyond the control of the Opposite DISMISSED PAGE 12 OF 16 FA/647/2023 D.O.D.:22.03.2024 QATAR AIRWAYS GROUP VS ANITA NAGPAL.
Party" and has submitted that the District Commission failed to consider the notification dated 30.11.2020, issued by the Director General of Civil Aviation and that the cancellation of the flight was beyond the control of the Appellant/Opposite Party. It is further submitted that the Appellant was barred to fly by the notification issued by the Director General of Civil Aviation and had no choice to negate the said notification which was accordingly informed to the Respondent/Complainant vide email dated 23.12.2020. Secondly, it is submitted that the Appellant has already processed the refund and is not liable for any claims which pertain to the rebooking of the flight by the Respondent with some other airlines. Pressing the aforesaid contentions, the Appellant has prayed for setting aside the impugned order.
4. During the course of proceedings, the Respondent was given opportunity to file the reply to the Appeal. However, vide order dated 14.02.2024, the counsel for the Respondent has submitted that he does not wish to file the reply to the Appeal.
5. I have perused the material available on record and heard the counsels for the parties at length.
6. The only question that falls for our consideration is whether the District Commission erred in establishing deficiency on the part of Appellant.
7. A perusal of the facts of the case divulge that the Respondents had a travel history form Athens (ATH) to New Delhi (DEL) via Doha (DOH) on 02.12.2020 and 03.12.2020, had used the one-way ticket and also having their return journey on 27.12.2020 from New Delhi (DEL) to Athens (ATH) via Doha (DOH) the flight. Thereafter, the flight was cancelled by the Appellant-airline citing an operational issue, that was beyond the control of the Appellant and the Respondents were informed the same vide email dated 23.12.2020.
DISMISSED PAGE 13 OF 16
FA/647/2023 D.O.D.:22.03.2024
QATAR AIRWAYS GROUP VS ANITA NAGPAL.
8. It is the main contention of the Appellant that the flight was cancelled in consonance with the notification issued by the Director General of Civil Aviation. Here we deem it appropriate to refer to the email dated 23.12.2020 (annexed at pg-103 alongwith the present appeal), reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
9. However, a perusal of the aforesaid email divulges that the Appellant-
airline cancelled the flight citing operational reasons and not on account of the notification issued by the government, a plea vehemently taken by the Appellant. The aforesaid email nowhere mentions that the flight was cancelled for reasons beyond the control of the Appellant and merely states that the flight is being cancelled due to operation issues. It is to be noted further that even if it is assumed that the flight was cancelled in view of the aforesaid notification, the Appellant-airlines ought not to DISMISSED PAGE 14 OF 16 FA/647/2023 D.O.D.:22.03.2024 QATAR AIRWAYS GROUP VS ANITA NAGPAL.
have accepted booking from the day of the issuance of the notification. A perusal of the record makes it clear that the notification was issued on 26.11.2020 and the Respondents booked tickets on 30.11.2020 with the Appellant-airlines i.e. four days after the issuance of the said notification. It is further implausible as to why the Appellant-airlines kept the Respondent's case dangling in the air by not cancelling the booking on the same date on which the notification was issued. Therefore, we opine that the contention of the Appellant that the booking was cancelled on account of government notification is just a feeble attempt to cover up its deficient conduct.
10. Another plea has been taken by the Appellant that the District Commission erred in observing that "No such evidence has been brought on record that the flight was cancelled as it was beyond the control of the Opposite Party"
11. Here, we deem it appropriate to refer to the observation recorded in this regard by the District Commission in the impugned order, reproduced hereunder as:
".... if such a circular was there why the opposite party booked tickets of the complainant which were done four days after issuance of the said circular i.e. on 30th november, 2020; and (2) if the flight was cancelled due to the aforesaid circular, the opposite party need not to take the plea of 'operational reason' it should simply say that due to the restrictions imposed by the Government of India, it could not operate."
12. On a thorough perusal of the record, we are unbale to find the copy of the said notification or any other cogent material to substantiate that the flight was cancelled on account of the said notification. Thus, we are in consonance with the view taken by the District Commission that no DISMISSED PAGE 15 OF 16 FA/647/2023 D.O.D.:22.03.2024 QATAR AIRWAYS GROUP VS ANITA NAGPAL.
evidence has been brought on record to establish that the flight was cancelled as it was beyond the control of the Appellant.
13. Therefore, as per the aforesaid discussion, we conclude that the conduct of the Appellant-airlines was deficient and find no reason to interfere with the order dated 04.07.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, M Block, Vikas Bhawan, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002. Consequently, the present appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
14. FDR, if any, be released in favour of the Respondent.
15. The Judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
16. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (PINKI) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced On:
22.03.2024 DISMISSED PAGE 16 OF 16