State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
K.R.Ravi, New No.30, Old No.50A, ... vs 1. Standard Chartered Bank, Rep. By ... on 4 January, 2012
THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI Date of filing : 07.08.2008 Date of order: 04.01.2012 BEFORE THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI (BENCH II) Present: Thiru.A.K.Annamalai, M.A., M.L., M.Phil., Presiding Member Judicial Thiru.S.Sambandam, B.Sc., MemberC.C.No.48/2008
WEDNESDAY THE 4th DAY OF JANUARY 2012 K.R.Ravi, New No.30, Old No.50A, Mahadevan Street, West Mambalam, Chennai -33. . Complainant Vs.
1. Standard Chartered Bank, Rep. by Mrs.Priya Krishnaprakash, Post Box No.1349, 9, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001. .. 1st Opposite party.
2. Phone Banking Unit, Standard Chartered Bank, Rep. by Officer Incharge, 1st and 2nd Floor, Tower A, Bridge Tech Park, Next to ITPL, Bangalore 560 066. .. 2nd Opposite party.
This complaint coming on before us for hearing finally on 30.11.2011, upon perusing the material documents, and upon hearing the arguments of counsel for both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Commission made the following order.
Counsel for the Complainant : M/s. N.L.Rajah, Advocate.
Counsel for the opposite parties 1&2 :
M/s.R.& P. Partners, Advocate.
A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL
1. The complaint filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act- 1986 Complainant claiming Rs.25,00,000/- as damages for the mental agony and hardship suffered due to deficiency of service by the opposite parties in providing flight ticket.
2. Complainant booked flight tickets on 9.1.2008 for the journey on 18.1.2008 from Chennai through Jet Airlines on 18th January 2008 from Chennai to Newark Via Brussels and Brussels to San Jose by continental Airlines Flight as onward journey for 18.1.2008 and 19.1.08 and for the return journey to leave on 25.1.08 Continental Airlines from San Jose to Newark, Newark to Chennai to reach Chennai on 27.1.2008 by using the Statandard Chartered Bank Gold Card issued by the opposite parties. On 181.2008 from Chennai after reached in Newark when he attempted for getting San Jose flight he was informed that his ticket was not confirmed and he was not allowed to board the flight and only after payment o fresh full charges for the fresh ticket by spending around 620 dollars for full fare he was permitted to get the flight for San Jose. The return tickets from San Jose to Newark also had met the same fate for which the complainants brother arranged to pay for fresh ticket and thereby complainant was compelled to leave the baggage of 3 suitcases at Newark itself which are not allowed to carry by sky train and because of the same he was not in a position to send the luggages direct to the San Jose and which caused hardship mental agony to the complainant and when enquired about the circumstances for not honouring the tickets to San Jose he was informed that the bank has not paid the ticket charges through the use of Visa card and thereby the continental flights have not confirmed the tickets. Hence when the opposite parties addressed they have stated through the letter they were unable to proceed with the investigation on account of any details from M/s.Continental Airlines and when the continental Airways was addressed on 9.5.2008 in the reply made it was informed that his credit card company needs to resolve this issue directly with Continental Airlines and on account of the failure of the bank to offer services promised the complainant incurred such difficulties by spending additional air fare for Rs.27,900/- to and fro San Jose Travel excess baggage amount around Rs.3,600/- additional taxi fare around Rs.9,000/- and calls made to locate the baggage around Rs.4,500/- and thereby come forward with the consumer complaint claiming the reliefs as above.
3. The opposite parties denied the allegations of the complainant in their written version except to state that the complainant was having visa card from their branch and regarding the failure of opposite parties in honoring the bank amount for the alleged tickets booked from Newark to San Jose and return fare since the offering company i.e Continental Airway has not given any supporting document for demand to pay the payment and thereby there was no deficiency on their part. Further it is the ordinary procedure while booking a ticket through the online process the Continental Airlines will send the receipt once the customers e-ticket has been processed and the process may take up to 3 hours and if the customer does not receive the receipt within 3 hours customer is advised to contact the Continental Airlines. Hence when the complainant did not receive the receipt for confirmation it is the duty of the complainant to check it with Continental Airlines when he was in Chennai from 9th January 2008 to 17th January 2008 did not bother the check or verify with the airlines with regard to processing of the e-ticket. Though the complainant had been negligent in checking he accused the opposite party for the same. The opposite parties by their letter dated 7.2.2008 clearly stated that they did not receive any instruction from M/s.Continental Airlines to debit the complainants card account towards purchase of the air ticket and also requested the complainant to bear in the interim as that they are still in the process of establishing contact with M/s.Continental Airways. The Continental Airways is the necessary party to the complaint and hence complaint to be dismissed.
4. Both sides have filed their proof affidavit along with the documents and the complainants side documents are marked as Exhibit A1 to A9 and the opposite parties documents were marked as Exhibit B1 to B4.
Exhibit A1- Xerox copy of Standard Chartered Bank Gold Card.
Exhibit A2 Xerox copy of Jet Airways Flight Details, dated 9.1.08. Exhibit A3 Xerox copy of Mail received from Continental Airways dated 19.01.08. Exhibit A4 Xerox copy of Letter from Opposite party, dated 7.2.09. Exhibit A5 Xerox copy of Bank Statement dated 12.02.08. Exhibit A6 Xerox copy of Letter from opposite party dated 29.2.08. Exhibit A7 Xerox copies of Complaint mail sent to opposite party dated 9.5.08 and E-mail reply received from opposite party dated 9.5.08. Exhibit A8 Xerox copy of Legal notice dated 17.6.08. Exhibit A9 Xerox copy of Acknowledgement card.
Exhibits of the opposite parties: Exhibit B1 Xerox copy of Power of Attorney issued by the opposite parties in favour of Mr.C.Amuthavel dated 3.6.08. Exhibit B2 Xerox copy of letter issued by the opposite parties to the complainant dt. 7.2.08. Exhibit B3 Xerox copy of letter issued by the opposite parties to the complainant dt.28.2.08.
Exhibit B4 Xerox copy of reply notice sent by the opposite parties to the legal notice dated 17.6.08 issued by the complainant.
5. Points for consideration are :-
1) Whether the complaint is defective for non-joinder of necessary parties ?
2) Whether there are any deficiency or negligence on the part of the opposite parties?
3) To what relief ?
6. Point No.1 : In this complaint enquiry, the complainant contended that he had booked tickets for air travel from Chennai to Newark and Newark to Chennai for return journey and in the course of journey from Newark to San Jose, from San Jose to Newark to Newark had made arrangements to get the tickets through the Continental Airlines with which the airlines who have booked the ticket for the complainant from Chennai to Newark said to have tie up. But the complainant contended from Newark to San Jose and San Jose to Newark he was not able to travel through the booked ticket since because at Newark he was refused to travel to San Jose as processing confirmation of ticket by Continental Airlines was not done and the complainant was compelled to pay full charges towards fare in order to travel to San Jose and from San Jose to Newark once again. The brother-in-law had to pay the cost of the ticket even though he had made arrangements for the tickets through the Continental Airlines and it is the contention of the Continental Airlines that because of the opposite party have not honored the credit card payment payable towards the ticket booked were not confirmed and for this the complainant alleged deficiency of service against the opposite party. From this link of details it is clearly only because of the non confirmation of ticket booked through Continental Airlines the complainant was not able to proceed straight away without any payment from Newark to San Jose and likewise for return journey up to Newark. For this Continental airways contended since there was no payment for the tickets this was happened.
7. In those circumstances unless the continental airways is added as a party in the complaint in order to proceed against existing opposite parties for proper adjudication to found out whether the deficiency or negligence is on the part of Continental Airways side or on the opposite parties sides it cannot be decided. Hence we are of the view that Continental Airways is the necessary party to decide the complaint. Since it is the complainant who had booked the tickets through Jet Airlines and the documents filed by him under Exhibit A3 from the Continental Airlines in which it is clearly stated a confirmation e-mail of your initionary will be sent to Ravi Una @ yahoo.com and for the tickets to and fro from Newark to San Jose, San Jose to Newark and in the intimation letters also it is stated as your receipts will be sent once to your e-tickets have with deceased which will take up 3 hours and if he do not receive e-ticket receipt within 3 hours please contact us. Once you have received your receipt request for other facilities.
From these details it is clear that only after getting confirmation of e-ticket alone it could be proceeded further and in case if it is not received he has to approach the Continental Airlines.
For this complainant has not proved anything to state that he has approached Continental Airline after booking tickets when he was in Chennai to confirm the process of the e-ticket under Exhibit A7 also the Continental Airlines though the e-mail stating to approach the concerned bank to resolve the issue and if necessary to resubmit the request by the opposite parties and this would also go to show that in order to claim adjudication in a proper manner Continental Airways is a necessary party and thereby the complaint is defective for want of non joinder of necessary parties. Accordingly we answer for this point.
8. Point No.2 : The complainant alleged that he has booked flight tickets through Continental Airlines for his continuation of his journey from Newarks to San Jose and San Jose to Newark for the dates on 18.1.2008 and 25.1.2008 respectively by using his Gold card issued by the opposite party for payment towards air ticket fare. But it was not honored by the opposite party. Hence tickets were not confirmed. The complainant failed to prove that he has actually used the gold card issued by the opposite parties for the purpose of getting the tickets to San Jose and return ticket through online booking on 9.1.2008 from Chennai. As pointed out by the opposite party to get the online e-ticket processing will be taken up for 3 hours and after booking the same they have to get back the confirmation letter for e-tickets and this was also confirmed by the details from Exhibit A3 and A2 and thereby the complainant has not proved that he has processed the e-ticket after booking for confirmation, as only after processing of confirmed ticket alone the airline could debit the money from the visa card used and for this necessary information or intimation will be furnished to the person who has availed the e-booking ticket services. When the opposite parties addressed in this regard they have sent reply to the complainant as per Exhibit A4 in which they have clearly stated that they have not received any instruction from M/s.Continental Airlines to debit his card account towards purchase of the air ticket and also further stated they attempted for the same and still establishing contact with M/s.Continental Airlines regarding the issue. For this the Continental Airlines also advised the complainant to resolve the matter with the opposite party to resubmit the request as per Exhibit A4. Under the documents filed by the opposite party it is mentioned under Exhibit B2 that the transaction with M/s.Continental Airlines was not processed on 9.1.2008 on his and if the card been entertained by continental they would have processed the same.
9. Further under Exhibit B4 in the reply notice given for the legal notice Exhibit A8 it is clearly mentioned in para 3 as follows :- We wish to clarify that the transaction towards M/s. Continental was not processed on January 09, 2008, on your clients card account 4129 0586 8352 4553. We note that post your client had tried booking the ticket online on the 09th January 2008 at Continental airline, there was a requirement to check the status of the ticket after three hours. The availability ticket for the travel would be known only after the said time. We understand that your client had not checked for the booking confirmation and had flown to America and then when he tried checking in at Newark the check-in was not honoured. We have investigated into our records and wish to confirm that we have not received any instruction from M/s.Continental to debit your card account towards purchase of your air ticket on January 09, 2008. We further wish to state that had this debit been attempted by M/s.Continental, we would have processed the same.
From these details it is clear that since the Continental Airlines has not processed the e-ticket alleged to have been booked by the complainant for his onward journey from Newark to San Jose to Newark for the specified dates for the confirmation of e-tickets and thereby there was no claim seems to have been made by the Continental Airlines through the visa card of the complainant from the opposite parties for which the opposite parties cannot be made liable or blamed. Since it is not proved that the opposite parties failed to process the visa card as debit amount in spite of the claim if any made towards the purchase of air ticket by the complainant through the usage of that card then only there can be any deficiency or negligence on the part of the opposite parties and in this case it was not at all proved any way by the complainant and thereby there cannot be any negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and accordingly we are answering to this point.
10. Point No.3 : In view of the findings given for the points 1 and 2 the complainant cannot claim any relief as prayed for and thereby the complaint is to be dismissed as devoid of merits as no negligence or deficiency or service of opposite parties are proved.
11. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. However there will be no order as to costs.
S.SAMBANDAM A.K.ANNAMALAI, MEMBER PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL LIST OF DOCUMENTS Exhibits of the complainant A1 Xerox copy of Standard Chartered Bank Gold Card.
A2 Xerox copy of Jet Airways Flight Details, dated 9.1.08 A3 Xerox copy of Mail received from Continental Airways dated 19.01.08.
A4 Xerox copy of Letter from Opposite party, dated 7.2.09.
A5 Xerox copy of Bank Statement dated 12.02.08.
A6 Xerox copy of Letter from opposite party dated 29.2.08.
A7 Xerox copies of Complaint mail sent to opposite party dated 9.5.08 and E-mail reply received from opposite party dated 9.5.08.
A8 Xerox copy of Legal notice dated 17.6.08.
A9 Xerox copy of Acknowledgement card.
Exhibits of the opposite party :
B1 Xerox copy of Power of Attorney issued by the opposite parties in favour of Mr.C.Amuthavel dated 3.6.08.
B2 Xerox copy of letter issued by the opposite parties to the complainant dt. 7.2.08.
B3 Xerox copy of letter issued by the opposite parties to the complainant dt.28.2.08.
B4 Xerox copy of reply notice sent by the opposite parties to the legal notice dated 17.6.08 issued by the complainant.
S.SAMBANDAM A.K.ANNAMALAI, MEMBER PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL INDEX : YES / NO sg/B-II/aka/ Bank