Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. The Airlines, OP-2 had refuted these allegations as indicated above, whereas the petitioner who was the OP-1 took a plea that it was not the duty of the OP-1 or its obligation to inform about any such rescheduling of the flight. The reason given by the OP-1 was that they are mere facilitators and were not the actual service provider of the flight. It has also been stated in NC/RP/166_167_168/2022 Page | 9 paragraph 9 and 10 of the reply of the petitioner that the flight was preponed directly by the concerned Airlines and that the OP-1 had no knowledge of the same. Paragraph 9 and 10 of the reply of the petitioners before the District Commission is extracted hereinunder:

9. In this specific case, there is no dispute with respect to the fact that the tickets in question were booked by OP No. 1 or not. This is also not disputed that the answering OP No. 1 acted merely as a booking facilitator which can be inferred from the modus of OP No. 1's business operation going at a very large scale on day to day basis. The OP No. 1 merely acts as a facilitator and is not the actual service provider. This Ld. DF may appreciate that the Complainant booked the air tickets in question from answering OP No. 1's website on 31.01.2016 scheduled to depart on 11.06.2016 at 06:00 Hours via Go Airlines Le. OP No. 2. The Complainant was also provided a confirmed e-ticket under this booking. However, the dispute herein was escalated by Complainant by not availing the confirmed booking on the pretext as alleged that the airline in which the Complainant had to travel was preponed by 15 minutes (change in schedule time from 06:00 Hours to 05:45 Hours) and the same was not in the knowledge of the Complainant due to which the Complainant could not board the flight. It is submitted that the flight in question was preponed directly by the concerned airline Le. OP No. 2 and the OP No. 1 had no knowledge of the same. It is pertinent to note that vide the e-ticket issued to the Complainant, the Complainant was duly informed to reach the airport 2 hours before the scheduled departure in order to avoid any difficulty/inability in availing the confirmed booking. It is further pertinent to note that it was clearly mentioned in the E-ticket which was sent to the Complainant that check-in starts 2hrs before the scheduled departure time and closes 60 minutes prior (while for domestic Flight counter closes 45-30 minutes prior). It is to be noted that answering O.P already kept extra time in sharing information to avoid such scenarios. It is submitted that regardless of the clear instructions, the Complainant chose to enter the airport at 05:05 Hours ie. just 55 minutes prior to the scheduled departure; to collect the boarding pass. Since, the flight timings were rescheduled by the concerned airlines i.e. OP No. 2 by preponing the flight to 05:45 Hours, the Complainant was informed by the airport officials that the counter for issuing the boarding NC/RP/166_167_168/2022 Page | 10 pass stands closed. Consequently, the Complainant had to buy new tickets at a higher price to travel from Delhi to Bangalore, as alleged. It is submitted that the Complainant with other two accompanying passengers did not turn up before 02 hours of departure as per the clear instructions to board the flight and hence forth the booking remained under NO-SHOW category.