State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Interglobe Aviation Limited (Indigo) vs Dr. S.M. Kantikar on 8 January, 2015
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No : 953 of 2014 Date of Institution: 20.10.2014 Date of Decision : 08.01.2015 InterGlobe Aviation Limited (IndiGo), Tower-C, 2nd Floor, Global Business Park, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon through its Managing Director. Appellant-Opposite Party Versus Dr. S.M. Kantikar R/o D-9, Tower 8, New Moti Bagh, New Delhi-110021 (Old Address C-II/23, Tilak Lane, New Delhi-110001). Respondents-Complainant CORAM: Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member Present: Shri Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for appellant. None for respondent. O R D E R
B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal has been preferred by InterGlobe Aviation Limited (IndiGo)-opposite party, against the order dated September 4th, 2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Gurgaon, whereby complaint filed by Dr.S.M. Kantikar (respondent herein) was accepted.
2. On May 22nd, 2013 the respondent booked a ticket (Annexure C-2) through website of the appellant for flight No. 6E122 for June 30th, 2013. He paid Rs.5275/- through his Credit Card of Corporation Bank. The status of the ticket was HOLD. Meaning thereby, it was not a confirmed ticket. Two days prior to his journey, that is, on June 28th, 2013 when the respondent checked the status of his ticket, it was still HOLD. As the respondent had to reach at New Delhi before July 1st, 2013 to join his duties, therefore, he booked another ticket on June 29th, 2013 for Flight No.6E106 (Annexure C-5) from Bangalore to New Delhi for which he paid Rs.9916/-. The status of the ticket was CONFIRMED.
3. The respondent filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging that when he booked the first ticket on May 22nd, 2013, he was assured that it was a confirmed booking but for the first time he came to know about the HOLD status on June 28th, 2013 when he checked the website of the appellant. It was further stated that the appellant did not refund the booking amount of Rs.5275/- which was paid by him for Flight No.6E122. Thus, he sought direction to the appellant-opposite party to refund amount of Rs.9916/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum w.e.f. June 29th, 2013;
Rs.10,000/- taxi charges paid by him on June 30th, 2013 from Shimoga to Bangalore, Rs.1.00 lac mental agony and harassment, Rs.2.00 lacs punitive compensation and Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses.
4. The appellant-opposite party contested complaint by filing reply stating therein that there was certain discrepancy with the payment done by the respondent towards his booking (Annexure C-2) due to which the itinerary reflected the ticket on HOLD and as soon as the discrepancy was resolved, the appellant refunded the entire booking amount without deducting any charges. IndiGos Conditions of Carriage explicitly provides that Indigo shall be liable to refund only the booking amount of the ticket and nothing more. However, as a gesture of goodwill, the appellant offered to refund the excess amount of Rs.4641/-, that is, the amount excess from Rs.5275/- in addition to offering IndiGo vouchers worth Rs.5275/-. It was further stated that in order to mitigate unnecessary litigation, the appellant had offered further sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the inconvenience suffered by him but the respondent refused to accept the same and filed the instant complaint. It was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal.
5. Vide impugned order, the District Forum accepted the complaint in the following terms:-
4 However, when the complainant has booked his another ticket for another flight on 29.06.2013 (C-5) but for a higher rate of Rs.9916/-. OP-Airlines should have refunded the previous ticket amount or adjust it with the purchase of new ticket which they admittedly failed to do for want of some discrepancy in the deposit of the money with them. The complainant, however, contended that he has never received refund of Rs.5275/- the price of his first ticket which has been though credited in the OP Account as per email of the Credit Card Division of Corporation Bank of the complainant dated 19.07.2013 that on 22.05.2013 the transaction is successful in favour of IndiGo, Gurgaon for Rs.5275/- (C-3) as well as Corporation Bank Statement (C-3A) shows the transaction details in favour of the OP on the same day but the OP has contended that they have already refunded it though the complainant produced email dated 19.08.2013 (C-9A/Ann A-13) regarding IVR payment refund confirmation sent to complainant by Sidharth Biswakarma of the OP informing him that they have refunded Rs.5275/- to the card used to make the IndiGo IVR transaction on 22.05.2013 that the amount would reflect in their Card in next 2-3 business days which is even accepted by the complainant through his email dated 16.09.2013 (C-9/Ann A-14) to Mr. Siddharth Biswakarma of OP wherein he has stated that I am surprised to know that you have refunded Rs.5275/- only and not considered my sufferings and mental agony and told them to initiate proper legal action for seeking appropriate compensation with reference to his email dated 19.08.2013 (C-9A) which cinches the matter that he has received the price of first ticket Rs.5275/- though after about three months which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OP causing harassment and mental agony to him though OP has taken the objection that they have offered him even excess amount of Rs.4641/- as a gesture of goodwill as well as voucher IndiGo of Rs. 5275 and compensation of Rs.10,000/- but the complainant refused to accept it though in his affidavit the complainant has admitted in Para No.17 that OP should have refunded Rs.9916/- at one stretch only, instead of Rs.5275/- on 19.08.2013 and then after one month credited Rs.4641/- on 16.09.2013 which means he has admitted having received refund of Rs.9916/- the price of his second ticket but it was a delayed payment. He has also admitted in his affidavit that though OP has offered IndiGo of Rs.5275/- but he refused to accept it, however, he has denied that they have offered Rs.10,000/- as compensation. Thus, in all the OP was deficient in providing services to the complainant and caused harassment and mental agony. Thus, he is entitled to compensation of Rs.35,000/- with Interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. The complainant is also entitled to litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-.
6. Notice of the appeal was sent to the respondent-complainant. He has sent a letter dated December 17th, 2014 stating that he is unable to attend the Commission and his reply may be treated his written arguments.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record as well as written submissions of the respondent.
8. Indisputably, the appellant has already refunded the amount of Rs.9916/- which was paid by the respondent towards the second booking of Flight No.6E106. The appellant-opposite party has been held deficient in service by the District Forum only on the ground that the refund of the above said amount was delayed. The finding so recorded is contrary to the affidavit of the respondent-complainant wherein he admitted that the appellant-opposite party had offered IndiGo voucher of Rs.5275/- alongwith refund of difference of amount of two tickets but he refused to accept the same. Meaning thereby, the delay was not on the part of the appellant but it was on the part of the respondent himself. Since, no deficiency in service has been established, therefore, the question of awarding compensation to the respondent does not arise, as ordered by the District Forum. So, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
9. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
10. The statutory amount of Rs.21,750/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant-opposite party against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.
Announced:
08.01.2015 (Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member (B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member CL