State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. Sh. Avtar Singh Dhaliwal vs Khanna Enterprises on 5 September, 2011
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. : 466 of 2010 Date of Institution : 24.12.2010 Date of Decision : 05.09.2011 1. Sh. Avtar Singh Dhaliwal s/o Sh. Joginder Singh, aged about 58 years. 2. Smt. Jaspal Kaur Wife of Sh. Avtar Singh Dhaliwal Both r/o H.No.1284, Old NAC Road, Mani Majra, Chandigarh. Appellant/Complainants V e r s u s 1. Khanna Enterprises, SCO No.94-95, First Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. 2. Lufthansa Airline, Power B, 12th Floor, Building No.10, DLF Fibre City, Phase 2, Sector 25, Gurgaon. IInd address : Lufthansa, 56, Air Line City Office, ALPS Bldg., 1st Floor, Janpath, New Delhi. 3. Tropical Travel and Cruises, Bay 113, 4581-Westwinds, Dr. NE Calgary, Alberta T3J 3J8 [Deleted vide order dated 19.1.2011] ....Respondents/OPs Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
S. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh.
Vijay Mangla, Adv. for the appellant Sh. G.S. Ahluwalia, Adv. for respondent No.1 Sh. Sandeep Suri, Adv. for respondent No.2 Respondent No.3 (deleted vide order dated 19.1.2011) PER JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER This appeal is directed against the order dated 1.11.2010, rendered by the ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which it dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant.
2. The facts, in brief, are that on 17.03.2009 the Complainants got booked ticket from OP-1 for Delhi to Calgary (Canada) for which a sum of Rs.1,19,000/- was charged including the return ticket for 16.06.2009 from Calgary to New Delhi via Frankfurt. While booking the tickets, the Complainants were told that the return tickets and the date of return could be changed without any hassle and extra charges. As per the scheduled departure, the flight was to take off from Delhi to Frankfurt and from there the Complainants were told that they would have to change the flight and would have to again board flight which would take them to their destination. On 20.04.2009, the complainants received a call that his mother had expired in India.
He contacted the OP-3 for getting his ticket changed for immediate traveling to attend the funeral of his mother. OP-3 charged a sum of $516 for preponing the date of the return ticket to 21.04.2009 from 16.06.2009. On reaching Frankfurt, boarding pass was not issued by OP-2 and the Complainants were not allowed to board the flight from Frankfurt to New Delhi as the tickets were allegedly not valid and a sum of 200 Euros was demanded by OP-2 for validating the tickets and issuing boarding pass which he had to pay. On reaching India the Complainants sent a legal notice and also approached the OPs so many times but in vain. When the grievance of the complainants was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed.
3. OP-1 in its reply took some preliminary objections, regarding maintainability of the complaint etc. It was pleaded that at the time of issuance of the tickets the complainants were asked to get in touch with it, in the event of any problem concerning the air tickets, but they did not contact it from Calgary ( Canada) and instead contacted OP-3 in Calgary and got the return tickets preponed, for which OP-3 charged money. It was stated that charging of additional sum for changing the dates of return of journey was as per usual norms and practice of Airlines. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on its part prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.
4. OP-2 in its reply also took some preliminary objections, regarding maintainability of the complaint etc. It was pleaded that the tickets were rescheduled/preponed from 15.06.2009 to 21.04.2009 due the sudden demise of the mother of the Complainant No.1 and the OP was ready and willing to refund the amount of Euros 200 received as rescheduling/preponing charges, purely on compassionate grounds and without prejudice to the stand taken by it, because the alleged amount was never received by it. It was further clarified that the above said tickets were Restrictive Fare W Class tickets and not Open Tickets and that rescheduling of such tickets was permitted only on payment of the requisite rescheduling charges and not otherwise because these were sold at a lesser price than other tickets. It was averred that the Complainants paid the rescheduling charges to OP-3 at Calgary without any protest or objection whatsoever. It was pleaded that the first leg of the rescheduled return travel was in a flight operated by Air Canada which was not arrayed as a party. It was stated that the tickets were issued for specific dates specified therein and not for any other dates. Remaining averments were denied, being wrong. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on its part OP-2 also prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
5. After hearing the ld. Counsel for the parties and on going through the evidence on record, the ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint, as stated above.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
7. We have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence on record of the case carefully.
8. The contention of the learned counsel for the complainants/appellants is that the learned District Forum did not appreciate the problem in the case and had justified not only the payment of $516 at Calgary (Canada) vide Annexure-5, but also the recovery of another sum of 200 Euros by OP No.2 at Frankfurt. It is not disputed that the complainant got the flight preponed . He does not object to the payment of $516 for this purpose which was recovered by OP No.3, who has rightly been given up, as no relief has been claimed against it. After receipt of $516 the OP No.2 issued fresh ticket Annexure C-5 with the changed dates. On the basis of this ticket the complainant performed first leg of journey from Calgary to Frankfurt. The question involved is whether OP No.2 who after receiving $516 through its agent OP No.3 at Calgary had already issued the ticket Annexure C-5 could refuse the boarding pass to the complainant at Frankfurt from where the second leg of journey was to start. We are of the opinion that the OP No.2 illegally demanded Euro 200 at Frankfurt and harassed him for its non payment and delayed his departure unnecessarily. Ultimately he had to pay Euro 200 and only thereafter the OP No.2 issued boarding pass to him and he was allowed to board the plane. The learned District Forum has no where analyzed this fact as to whether the OP No.2 could charge twice for the preponement of the ticket especially when the same had already been allowed vide Anenxure C-5. Our answer to this question is in negative. Whatever payment was required for the change of the date the complainant had already paid vide Annexure C-5. He was not liable to pay anything extra for the return journey from Frankfurt to New Delhi. So charging of Euro 200 at Frankfurt was an unfair trade practice adopted by the OPs.
9. The learned counsel for the OP No.2/respondent has argued that they were ready to refund the amount of Euro 200 but the complainant was not willing to accept the same. This contention also is of no help to them.
Firstly the said amount should not have been charged from the complainant and this fact itself proves deficiency in service. Secondly there is no such letter issued by OP No.2 intimating to him that they were willing to refund the amount nor the amount was tendered by OP No.2 at any time before or during the trial of the complaint. This argument therefore, cannot absolve OP No.2 of its liability.
10. As per the initial itinerary the complainant was to return from Calgary on 15.6.2009 but due to the death of his mother on 20.4.2009 he preponed his ticket in view of which he was to travel from Calgary on 21 April, 2009. The anxiety of the complainant in coming back for attending the last rites of his mother can be seen from his conduct that he immediately booked the flight back to India. The OP No.2 however, thwarted all his efforts to join the last rites of his mother. If the complainant had not been delayed at Frankfurt he would have reached in time to attend the last rites of his mother but the OPs not only detained him but harassed him at Frankfurt when he was under shock due to the death of his mother and extracted from him Euro 200 for boarding the plane. They not only hurt his sentiments but deprived him from attending the last rites of his mother by delaying the boarding for about 24 hours which cannot be otherwise compensated in money. We are therefore, of the opinion that for hurting the sentiments of the complainant and making it impossible for him to join the last rites of his mother and for causing him mental and physical harassment at Frankfurt the OP No.2 should pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation.
11. In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the compliant was liable to succeed but has been wrongly dismissed. We therefore, allow the appeal and direct the OP No.2 to refund to the complainant the amount in Indian currency equivalent to Euro 200 along with Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation. If the entire amount is not paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order the OP No.2/respondent shall be liable to pay the same along with penal interest @12% p.a. since filing of the present complaint till payment to the appellants.
12. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.
Pronounced. Sd/-
5th September, 2011 [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER] PRESIDENT Sd/-
[NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Sd/-
[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL] MEMBER mp