State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Flight Raja Travels Pvt. Ltd. vs Deepam Matta on 1 September, 2017
First Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PUNJAB,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR -37 A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.961 of 2016
Date of Institution : 19.12.2016
Oder reserved on : 24.08.2017
Date of Decision : 01.09.2017
M/s. Flight Raja Travels Pvt. Ltd. through its CEO, Magnotia, Block B,
Level 4, Manyata Embassy Business Park, Outer Ring Road, Nagawara,
Bangalore-560045 through its authorized agent/authorized person
Sh.Pavitar Raheja s/o S.D.Raheja r/o F-35, 4th Floor, Bali Nagar, New
Delhi.
........Appellant/Opposite Party No.2
Versus
1. Deepam Matta D/o Capt.Y.S.Matta, resident of 5 Ajit Nagar, Patiala d/o
Capt.Y.S.Matta, Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner(Retd.) Ajit
Nagar, Patiala.
......Respondent No.1/complainant
2. Virgin Atlantic, 314, 3rd Floor, Time Tower, Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road,
Gurgaon-122002.
......Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.1
First Appeal against order dated
02.11.2016 passed by District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Patiala.
Quorum:-
Sh.J.S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member
Smt.Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.M.S.Uppal, Advocate
For respondent No.1 : Cap.Yuvinder Singh Matta, SPA
For respondent No.2 : Ms.Kavita Arora, Advocate
2
F. A. No. 961 of 2016
J.S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member:-
The appellant has directed this appeal against order dated 02.11.2016 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (in short the "District Forum") in accepting the complaint of the respondent No.1 of this appeal by directing appellant and respondent no.2 of this appeal to refund the amount of the ticket, as respondent No.1 of this appeal could not avail for 01.12.2015, and to refund the amount of Rs.42,959/- the price of the ticket and further to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation to her. Respondent No.1 of this appeal is complainant before the District Forum Patiala in the complaint and appellant of this appeal is OP No.2 therein and respondent No.2 of this appeal is OP No.1 therein and they be referred as such, hereinafter, for the sake of convenience, as arrayed in the original complaint.
2. Complainant Deepam Matta filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the 'Act') against OPs on the averments that her brother booked a return ticket from London-Dehli- London of Virgin Atlantic Air lines through Via.com services in her name. The Via.com reference number for her London-Delhi flight was FMN1 EZT4SET and Virgin Atlantic PNR No.BMK06G and they were the confirmed tickets. The complainant's flight details included London-Delhi trip for 01.12.2015 at 21:50 Flight and inward bound from Delhi-London trip was scheduled for 07.01.2016, 2 00PM. She logged on to the virgin Atlantic site to choose her meal preferences, seat allocation and updating of her personal information on 22.11.2015, a week in advance. The site showed the date of journey as 01.12.2015. On 30.11.2015's night, she again logged on the site of virgin, but she could not do so, as the system showed error. She waited till morning to make a call to the concerned virgin Atlantic authorities and via.com authorities. On 01.12.2015, she was 3 F. A. No. 961 of 2016 told that her flight was pre-poned to 30.11.2015. She was shocked and taken aback on learning it, as she was not intimated by either of the OPs about pre-poning of her flight or by email, by SMS and by any call to her. On 01.12.2015, she made several calls to OPs to sort out the issue and to put her on the next flight to Delhi, but none of the OPs provided her with any substantial help. She was made to pay a cost of Rs.42,959/- as a penalty cost and reissuing cost for new ticket for 02.12.2015. The via reference is No.FMN1ID0OQDD and Virgin Atlantic PNR is BMK06G. On 9.12.2015, she also sent a notice to Ops for claiming damages to the tune of Rs.10lac alongwith refund of extra money. On 14.12.2015, she received an e-mail from OP no.1, wherein it expressed extremely sorry on its part and blamed booking agent i.e. via.com for the hardship caused to her. On 17.12.2015, she got an e-mail from OP no.2, in which was her confirmation of return journey scheduled for 07.1.2016 from Delhi to London. It also showed her London to Delhi flight scheduled for 2.12.2015, which was never communicated to her. She also received a call from No.+9180678181 from OP no.2 asking her about the facts, as to what had happened for her London-Delhi flight. No positive response was given by either of the OPs. She suffered from mental tension, agony and harassment due to this deficiency in service. Thus, OPs have not only committed deficiency of service, but also adopted unfair trade practices in dealing with her. She prayed that Ops be directed to pay compensation of Rs.5 Lac each, further to refund Rs.42,959/- charged from her in a deceitful manner, further to pay interest @ 12% per annum and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed its written reply. Preliminary objections were raised by OP No.1 that District Forum below has no territorial jurisdiction in accordance with Section 11(2) of the Act, as the cause of action has arisen in Bangalore and that the representative of the 4 F. A. No. 961 of 2016 complainant has not been duly authorized by the complainant and hence he has no locus-standi to contest the case on her behalf. On merits, it was denied that Sh.Navandeep Singh Matta, booked the tickets. It was also denied that the tickets were booked from Patiala for the complainant. It was submitted that the bank statement is insufficient document to prove that the location of computer device was in Patiala, from which the tickets were got booked. It was further submitted that OP no.1 never had any contact number or e-mail ID of the complainant. It was denied that the complainant had ever logged on the website of OP no.1 on 22.11.2015. It was denied that on 22.11.2015, the website showed the date of journey as 01.12.2015. It was further averred that the website of OP NO.1 was duly updated just after the rescheduling of the flight from 01.12.2015 to 30.11.2015. It was alleged that the website of OP no.1 was working perfectly on the night of 30.11.2015 and none of the passengers complained about any error on the website. It was further submitted that OP no.1, like all other reputed Airlines, maintains customer's care support on 24 hours basis and all calls are entertained with utmost importance, therefore, it was surprising as to why the complainant had to wait till morning just to make a call. It was further submitted that when the booking was made through a travel agent, it was the responsibility of the Travel Agent to inform her and to send the amended tickets to the passenger in the event of change of schedule or cancellation of flight. It was further submitted that the travel agent of the complainant was duly informed on 20.8.2015 i.e. just after 5 days from the date of original booking, about the changed schedule of the flight i.e. from 01.12.2015 to 30.11.2015. No document has been placed on the record by her to show that the complainant had ever inquired about any travel information from OP no.1 through any means of communication. All the documents submitted by the complainant have a bearing that OP no.2 was responsible to update her 5 F. A. No. 961 of 2016 about travel related information. It rendered its services properly and with due care as well. OP no.1 admitted the receipt of the notice by her, but denied the contents of the notice. It was admitted that an e-mail was sent to the complainant on 14.12.2015 on behalf of OP no.1. It is submitted that OP no.1 expressed grief as a compassionate gesture on the suffering and hardships faced by its customer, nevertheless caused due to the negligent conduct of her travel agent, but it cannot amount to the fact of admission of deficiency of service on the part of OP no.1. It denied that OP no.2 was the agent of OP no.1.It was further submitted that it was the complainant, who hired services of OP no.2 to book her ticket. It was alleged that the e-mail received by the complainant from OP no.2 on 17.12.2015, still contained wrong information viz. 1.12.2015 flight instead of 30.11.2015, which clearly indicated that OP no.2 was negligent in its duty to communicate correct travelling information to the complainant. It was submitted that there is no deficiency of service on its part as the tickets were not booked directly and it never had any contact detail of the complainant with it. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, OP No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. OP no.2 filed its separate written reply by raising preliminary objections that the complainant has no locus-standi to file the complaint as Navandeep Singh Matta booked the tickets and money was also paid from his account and said Navandeep Singh had not filed any complaint as he could be the aggrieved and competent person to file complaint for refund of his amount only. On merits, it was stated that it was a travel agent and not the actual service provider and offers only web portal to the customers for booking tickets of their choices in accordance with the terms and conditions of the concerned Airlines. The complainant booked the tickets of Virgin Atlantic Airlines, thus the ultimate contract was between the complainant and the Airlines and not with it. The refund if any, had to be 6 F. A. No. 961 of 2016 paid back by OP no.1 i.e. Virgin Atlantic Airlines. It was only an intermediary service provider and in no case, it be deemed to be a provider of services and also it would not be held responsible in case complainant incurred any additional expenses for the losses beyond its control. The contract arrived at between the complainant and OP no.1, provided that it was not responsible to prove any updates on schedules, availability, cancellations and modifications to the service provides by the suppliers. As and when complainant contacted it, all necessary help was provided to her. After denouncing all other averments made in the complaint, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of authorized agent of complainant Ex.C-A and Ex.C-B, and documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-10 and closed the evidence. As against it, Ops tendered in evidence affidavit of Pavitar Raheja, authorized agent Ex.OPA, affidavit of Vijay Kumar Ex.OPB and documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP-9 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum accepted the complaint of the complainant, as referred to above. Dissatisfied with the above order of District Forum Patiala, OP No.2 now appellant has directed this appeal against the same.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case. Ex.C-1 is booking detail for travel on the record. The ticket was booked for the complainant by her brother for the date of travel 01.12.2015. Ex.C-2 is the payment detail of Rs.47,867/- paid by the brother of the complainant from his own account for booking the air ticket of the complainant at Patiala. The output taken out from the net is Ex.C-3 on the record. Ex.C-4 is the confirmation for booking details by Virgin Atlantic airline OP No.1 for Rs.42959. The grievance of the complainant is that Ops preponed her flight 30.11.2015, whereas 7 F. A. No. 961 of 2016 scheduled date for the flight was 01.12.2015 and that too without informing her. Legal notice was served upon Ops on the record vide Ex.C-5. Ex.C-6 is the tracking record of the luggage. Ex.C-8 is email addressed to complainant by OP No.2 expressing sorry on its behalf for preponing the date of the flight. Ex.C-9 is email by Via.Com addressed to complainant expressing thanks to her for booking. The grievance of the complainant is that the flight was booked and scheduled for 01.12.2015 and it was preponed for 30.11.2015 by Ops without giving any intimation to her. The flight was booked by her brother through OP No.2 via.com. The agency of OP No.2 was used for booking the ticket by the brother of the complainant on her behalf by making payment at Patiala. Ops also adduced the evidence Ex.OP-A affidavit of Sh.Pavitar Raheja, signatory of company. He stated that complainant booked the tickets of OP No.1 and the contract was between OP No.1 and the complainant not with OP No.2. Ex.OP-B is the affidavit of Vijay Kumar Sales Service Manager of OP no.1. Reply to legal notice is Ex.OP-1 on the record. Ex.OP-4 is certificate issued by Op no.2 to the effect that Vijay Kumar was authorized to sign the affidavit and to make statements on its behalf before the District Forum. We have also perused the other documents placed on the record and the evidence on the file.
7. From critical analysis of evidence on the record and hearing respective submissions, we have come to this conclusion that Y.S.Matta is the authorized person of the complainant and he is competent to file the complaint in this regard and to pursue the case. First point for adjudication is as to whether District Forum Patiala has requisite territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint or not? District Forum has rightly held that payment was made by the brother of the complainant for her for booking the ticket at Patiala by using his ATM card. The Forum has jurisdiction, if any part of cause of action has arisen, within its territorial jurisdiction. The payment of 8 F. A. No. 961 of 2016 consideration for hired services is also part of cause of action and District Forum rightly came to the conclusion that District Forum was invested with territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint. The findings of District Forum below is affirmed on this point.
8. Complainant has been residing at London and she had to attend the meeting with Supervisor. Her brother made payment for purchase of ticket at Patiala and the flight was scheduled for 01.12.2015 from London to Delhi and return ticket Delhi to London on 07.01.2016. Complainant duly provided her email id and cell number of her brother to OP No.2 for further communications. When she logged for further inquiry about the flight on 30.11.2015, suddenly she found that there was an error in the computer system. She contacted OP No.1 agent, who stated that it was preponed for 30.11.2015 and it came like a bolt from the blue to her. There is nothing on the record to establish that either OP No.1 or OP No.2 informed her about preponing the flight for 30.11.2015 instead of scheduled date on 01.12.2015. The reschedule of the flight was not intimated to complainant by Ops at all. Payment was eventually received by OP No.1 through Op No.2. Op No.2 cannot be also absolved of its liability. As far as the booking agent is concerned, which is via.com. National Commission has held in Chief Commercial Officer, Indian Airlines and Anr. Vs. P.Lalchand and Anr, reported in Vol.II CPJ 61, that a ticket for airlines was purchased for travelling through travel agent by complainant on 17.05.1991- A change in time of departure was effected on 08.05.1991 which became effective from 15.05.1991. All agents were communicated about change in schedule, who were responsible to inform the travelers about the change-Indian Airlines cannot be held responsible for any deficiency in service for not informing the complainant about change in time. We find that there is nothing on the record that OP No.2 did inform OP No.1 about the change of the schedule. Consequently, both the OPs have been rightly held to be 9 F. A. No. 961 of 2016 liable for deficiency in service to complainant on their part by District Forum. We have not come across any illegality and material infirmity in the order of District Forum under challenge in this appeal. The order of District Forum Patiala is, thus, affirmed in this appeal.
9. As a corollary of above discussion, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
10. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission and thereafter another sum of Rs.38,496/- was deposited as per the directions of this Commission. The registry is hereby directed to remit Rs.25,000/- + Rs.38,496/- alongwith interest, which accrued thereon, if any, to the respondent No.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft to the extent of her entitlement as embodied in the order of District Forum Patiala and excess amount, if any, remained thereafter, be refunded to appellant after expiry of 45 days subject to stay orders, if any.
11. Arguments in this appeal were heard on 24.08.2017 and the order was reserved. The certified copies of the order be communicated to the parties under rules.
12. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J.S. Klar) Presiding Judicial Member (Surinder Pal Kaur) Member September 01, 2017 Rupinder-2