Date of Filing: 20.12.2018
Date of Order: 12.02.2021
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Sri P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B., PRESIDENT
HON’BLE Sri K.RAM MOHAN, B.Sc. M.A L.L.B., MEMBER
On this the Friday the 12th day of February, 2021
C.C.No. 490 /2018
Between
- K.S. Amarnath S/o K. Subba Raju,
Aged about 66 years, Occ: Retd Govt Employee,
- K.S.Jyothi W/o K.S. Amarnath,
Aged about 58 years, Occ: Housewife,
- K. Panudu Ranga Reddy S/o K. Yetta Reddy,
Aged about 70 years, Occ: Retd Govt. Employee,
- K. Sujatha W/o K. Panudu Ranga Reddy,
Aged about 60 years, Occ: Housewife,
- P. Siva Kumar, S/o P. Soma Raju,
Aged about 67 years, Oc: Retd Govt. employee,
- P. Krishnaveni W/o P. Siva Rama Raju,
Aged about 60 years, Occ: Housewife,
- N. Bharathi Vijayalakshmi W/o N. Rama Raju,
Aged about 70 years, Occ: Housewife,
- K. Subba Rao S/o K. Venkata Rataiah,
Aged about 68 years, Occ: Retd Govt. employee,
- K. Nagamani W/o K. Subba Rao,
Aged about 60 years, Occ: House wife
All are R/o of H.No. 3-5-784/2/8/A, Flat No.202,
Sri Sai Sri Heights Apartments, Beside State Bank of India,
Kingkoti, Hyderabad – 500029.
….Complainants
And
- M/s.SVR Holidays,
Rep by Branch Manager Dilsukhnagar,
Sai Baba Temple Road,
Beside Kauru Vysya Bank,
Hyderabad – 500060.
- M/s. Interglobe Aviation Ltd., (INDIGO),
Rep by Branch Manager, 5-9-19/5,
Opp Secretariate, Saifabad, Hyderabad – 500022.
… Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Complainant : Sri. Dasaradha Ramulu
Counsel for the Opposite parties No.1 : Mr. K. Raaja
Counsel for the Opposite party No.2 : Mr. A. Venkatesh
O R D E R
(By Sri P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B., PRESIDENT on behalf of the Bench)
1. This Complaint is preferred U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
2. The complainant case in brief that the opposite party No.1 is in the business of arranging tours. The complainants as a group approached the opposite part No.1 for a spiritual trip and opposite party No.1 gave travel scheduled costing of Rs. 42,500/- for person on double sharing basis and Rs. 41,000/- for person on triple sharing basis. The tour involves departing from Hyderabad arriving to Katmandu Via New Delhi and proceedings further to Pokhara city Jomson Village, Mukthinath, Manokama and return back to Katmandu in a period of 5 nights and 6 days. Entire trip schedule was in a broacher the includes Travel , stay and other expenses. The complainants in all paid a total sum of Rs. 3,80500 to opposite party No.1 under an impression that opposite party No.1 will perform the entire to their satisfaction as per the travel schedule complainant were to departure at Hyderabad on 02.05.2018 by Flight No. 6E738 at 5:25 Am and to arrive at Delhi at 7:45 Am by Indigo Flight from Delhi, they were to travel to Katmandu on the same day from 1:30 pm to 3:30 pm by Jet Air ways and 07.05.2008 they were to travel from Katmandu to Delhi by Jet Air ways from 1: 30 Pm to 3:00 Pm. On the same day they were to board Flight Delhi 5:10 pm and to arrive at Hyderabad at 7:20 pm by Vistara Airways. Opposite party No.2 is a private Airlines and opposite party No.1 booked tickets travel from Hyderabad to Delhi on 02.05.2018 the complainants were made to arrive New Delhi at 11:30 am instead of scheduled time of 7:45 am by a separate Flight arranged by opposite party No.2. The complainant reached the International Airport at New Delhi by 2:00 Pm instead of scheduled time of 1:30 pm because of late arrival they could not catch Jet Air ways which left Delhi Airport at 1:30 pm. The opposite parties have not made alternative arrangements at Airport for the arrival of the complainant at International Airport New Delhi before the departure of Jet Airlines and it is solely on account of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.1 & 2. The opposite party No.1 suggested to the complainant to proceed to Lucknow by flight and from there to Pokhara city by road on the ground that there was no Flight to Katmandu on 02.05.2018 and 03.05.2018. Left with no option. The complainant followed the directions of opposite party No.1 and traveled to Lucknow by flight in the evening and reached to Lucknow at 8:30 pm on 02.05.2018, and were made to stay in a ordinary room at hotel in Lucknow instead of a star hotel.
3. The opposite party No.1 provided a vehicle for travel of the complainant from Lucknow to Pokhara and the travel distance is 600 K.M. As per the original schedule the complainant were to travel only 2.00 k.m by road from Katmandu to Pokhara City. Thus they were made to travel 400 K.M extra by road and they reached the Pokhara City in the late night. Being the elder people they suffered lot physically and mentally on account of extra road journey of 400 K.M. After reaching the Pokhara City and completing religious visit to Holy Mukthinath temple on 05.05.2018 they were informed by the representative of opposite party No.1 that return Flight booked in Jet Airways from Katmandu to New Delhi was got automatically cancelled and fresh booking has to be made from Katmandu to New Delhi and from New Delhi to Hyderabad on 07.05.2018 at an additional cost of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Earlier flight booked was in Vistara Airways from New Delhi to Hyderabad for return journey. Opposite party No.1 booked tickets and freshly by Air India from Delhi to Hyderabad for journey and 07.05.2018 on reached Hyderabad late in the night with extra expenditure. They were made to pay Rs. 50,000/- additionally to representative to opposite party No.1 initially the opposite party No.1 promised to refund the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- which was additional expenditure incurred by the complainant on reaching the Hyderabad but same was not complied. The opposite party No.1did not consider the initial request of the complainants to ensure the entire trip stating that the nobody came forwarded to ensure it.
4. At Katmandu the complainant could visit Holy Pasupathinath and Budhanilkantha Temples and rest of the important sighting and places were not shown by opposite party No.1 as promised. Opposite party No.1 did not plan the entire trip effectively and properly and did not foresee the travel problems though it was duty bound. On account of it complainant could not perform the journey to their entire satisfaction apart from mental stress agony and Financial loss suffered. The complainant’s have paid extra amount 38,637/- for flight and for journey from New Delhi to Lucknow Rs. 27,708/- for road journey from Lucknow to Pokhara and Rs. 1,10,655/- towards flight charges from Katmandu to New Delhi and Delhi to Hyderabad. They received Rs 27,000/- as refund from Jet to Airlines and thus in all paid Rs. 1,50,000/- additionally. On account of late departure of Indigo Flight on 02.05.2018 there was a change of scheduled and it was and opposite party No.1 is solely responsible for it.
5. The opposite party was requested for refund of additional expenses and pay compensation for causing physical stress and mental agony but it refused. Hence a legal notice was got issued on 01.08.2018 to opposite party No.1 & 2 and having acknowledged it they neither comply the demand nor to gave a reply. Hence the present complaint for a direction to the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- which was collected from the complainants towards additional travelling expenditure and interest on said amount @ 24 % p.a from the date of payment to the date of return and to pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for causing physical stress and mental agony for the complainant and to award Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of this complaint.
6. The opposite party while admitting offering of tour program of the complainant as scheduled and collecting of the amount from the complainant denied the allegations deficiency of service and liability to pay any sum of money to the complainants. The stand of the opposite party No.1 is complainants in all paid a sum of Rs. 3,18,500/- and they were to pay G.S.T @ 12% on the said amount which comes to Rs. 18,900/- but they paid only Rs. 2,500/- on 02.05.2018. Due to engine failure of the Indigo Flight which was to departure at 5:25 am another Flight was arranged at 11:30 pm and said flight reached at New Delhi at 2:00 pm and because of late arrival the flight from New Delhi to Katmandu was missed by the complainants. The complainant have boarded the flight at 01:30 pm they would have reached a Katmandu at 3:30 pm. At the requests of the complainants and with their permission the opposite party No.1 cancelled the Delhi to Katmandu flight. As per the Airlines rules when Delhi Katmandu flight cancelled automatically the return ticket from Katmandu to New Delhi was also cancelled and same was informed to complainant.
7. At the request of the complainant of the opposite party No.1 arranged fresh Airline ticket from Delhi to Lucknow and rooms were arranged at the Lucknow for the complainant to fresh up and a vehicle to travel by road from Lucknow to Katmandu as such the question of deficiency of service does not arise.
8. As per the agreement between the complainant and opposite party No.1 the tour package to start from to Delhi but humanitarian grounds opposite party No.1 provided flight from Delhi to Lucknow and also rooms and a vehicle to travel to Katmandu through the tour package cover this same out of Rs. 1,50,000/- paid by the complainant opposite party paid an amount of Rs. 50,000/- for providing towards flight charges from New Delhi to Lucknow and for vehicle from Lucknow to Katmandu. The complainant visited of all the places at Katmandu as per the tour package hence the allegations that they were not shown important places and other Temples is not correct. On account of failure of Engine the Indigo Flight and on the request of the complainants and with their permission another flight and vehicle were arranged to see that no inconvenience is caused to the complainants. The complainants in order to avoid all false to payment of balance of Rs. 32,000/- payable to opposite party No.1 filed the present false complaint.
9. after receipt of legal notice dt. 01.08.2018 got issued by the complainants opposite party No.1 called them and explained the entire episode and complainants were convinced but later as an after thought they have come up with the present complaint in order to extract money.
The contest of the opposite party No.2 the is Indigo Flight was delayed by 3 hours 4 minutes and arrived at Delhi Airport at 11: 29 hours and complainant had sufficient time to board Jet Air ways right which was to departure at 1:30 pm. The complainants were fully aware of reason for delay of Indigo Flight and chooses to continue journey despite being provided with option of either for full refund or re-accommodation to board an alternative flight to their destination. The complainant completed their journey as per revised schedule but filed the present complaint to benefit wrongfully. Airlines is not obligation to pay any compensation either on account of delay or cancellation of flights as mandated under the 1934 Act 1937 rules. There is no privity of contract between the complainants and opposite party No.2 since ticket for booked by opposite party NO.1 for traveler of complainants, hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
10. In the enquiry for the complainants evidence affidavit of first complainant is got filed and substances of the same is in line with the care set out in the main complaint Twenty Eight documents are exhibited for the complainants side. For opposite party No.1 evidence affidavit one Jandardhan Reddy stated to its Branch manager is got filed and essence of his affidavit is in tune with the stand taken of the written version filed for it. For opposite party No.3 evidence affidavit of its associated General Consultant is got filed and substance of the same is in line with stand taken in the written version filed for it.
11. On the consideration of the material brought on the record for both sides the following points have emerged for determination.
- Whether the complainants have made out a case of deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.?
- Whether the complainants are entitled for the reliefs prayed for.?
- To what relief.?
Point No.1:-
At the outset it has to be seen the whether there is any privity of contract between the complainants and opposite party No.2. It is the specific stand of opposite party No.2 in the written version that the flight tickets for travel of complainant from Hyderabad to Delhi and from Delhi to Katmandu and for return journey were booked by opposite party No.1. In the evidence affidavit of first complainant there is no denial of this aspect and it amount an implied admission of the same. Thatapart. As could be seen from Ex.A16 to Ex.A20 documents, for travel of the complainants by flights were booked by opposite party No.1. No scrap of paper is placed on record for the complainants to say that there is a privity of contract between the complainants and opposite party No.2 with regard to complainants travel by flight.
Even assuming for a moment that there was an implied contract between the complainants and opposite party No.2 with regard to travel schedule still complainants cannot allege deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.2 for the reason that the Air Line Industry in the Country is regulated by Civil Aviation at the helm of its administration operative with its other arms including the Director General of Civil Aviation , Airport Authority of India and Airport Economic Regularity Authority Thus the Air Line Companies are under obligations to operate completely within the frame work of various Air Travel related laws and rules made there under. The provisions of para 1.4 and para 1.5 of applicable CAR says Air Line would not have the obligation to pay compensation in cases where the cancellation and delays have been caused in the event of forcemajure. It also says Air Line would also not liable to pay any compensation in respect of cancellations and delays attributable to Air Traffic Control Meteorological conditions, securities or any other causes which are beyond the control of Air Line.
It is the stand of opposite party No.2 and the evidence of RW2 that on 02.05.2018 the Indigo Flight departed from the Airport in Hyderabad at 05:25 Am but on account of high Air frame vibration the flight was diverted back to the Airport at Hyderabad and landed back at 07:06 am on the same day. This unforeseen the circumstances was not anticipated by the opposite party No.2 at the time of boarding and take off. Taking into consideration and safety and security all the passengers the flight was diverted back and on alternative flight was arranged for passenger who booked to traveler to New Delhi and the said alternative flight took off the Airport on the same day at 8:29 Am. So it is evident that opposite party No.2 was constrained to bring back the flight which took off at 5:20 am for the safety and security all the passengers including the complainants who have boarded the flight and made efforts to see that passengers travel to their destination by arranging alternative flight. This Act of opposite party No.2 cannot be by any means be said is deficiency of service.
Now coming to the aspects of liability of opposite party No.1 it has to see that entire tour program of the complainants is completed to their satisfaction. Opposite party No.1 as an experienced travel agency could have made provision for more than sufficient time for the complainants to board flights at every places and booking of tickets with tight schedule is not expected from a traveler . The opposite party No.1 is quite aware that the takeoff or landing of the flights at the Airports is not completely in the hands of flight operators who are under the strict control of rules and regulations imposed by Airport authority of India and others. Opposite party No.1 soon after coming to know of return back of the flight could have informed his agent at Delhi to see that the complainants could not able to catch the flight to travel Katmandu from Delhi. It should have scheduled the timings by with a minimum 6 to 8 hours gap of landing of the flight and take off the next flight for the complaints. One can imagine the physically strain caused on account of road travel for distance of 400 k.m. Being a tour operator , the opposite party No.1 should have visualized the aspects while arranging schedules to the persons who opted to go on tours being arranged by it. For all the sufferance of the complainants is solely attributable to the opposite party No.1 alone when a flight is cancelled it is the responsibility of opposite party No.1 to make alternative arrangements and additional costs and consequences should be solely responsibility of opposite party No.1 being a tour operator . Hence charging of additional amount of Rs. 1.5 Lakhs from the complainants by opposite party No.1. is nothing but an unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. The documents placed on record are not disputed by the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 is trying to say that the tour scheduled starts at Delhi and not Hyderabad but no document has been placed in support of the this contention. In the broacher under Ex.A1 there is no mention that tour commences from Delhi and it is the responsibility of the complainants to reach Delhi on their own for commencing the tour. The very fact that opposite party No.1 booked the flight tickets for the complainants to travel from Hyderabad itself speaks the volumes of falsity of in its claim that tour program commences at Delhi and not from Hyderabad.
The material brought on the record clenchingly proves that there is not only deficiency of service but also unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party No.1, accordingly point is answered.
Point NO. 2 & 3
In the result, complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite party No.1 to refund the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the complainants with interest @ 12% p.a from the date of collecting the amount from the complainants to the date of payment. The opposite party No.1 further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing physical strain and mental agony to the complainants. The opposite party No.1 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of this compliant.
Time for compliance 45 days from the date of service of this order.
Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by him, pronounced by us on this 12th the day of February, 2021.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
NIL
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1– Copy of detailed tour itinerary and broacher showing pilgrim tour
packages.
Ex.A2 – Copy of SVR Holidays receipt No. 1414 dt. 11.01.2018.
Ex.A3 - Copy of SVR Holidays receipt No. 1416 dt. 11.01.2018.
Ex.A4 – Copy of SVR Holidays receipt No. 1415 dt, 11.01.2018.
Ex.A5 – Copy of SVR Holidays receipt No.1413 dt. 11.01.2018.
Ex.A6 – Copy of SVR Holidays receipt No. 1412 dt. 11.01.2018.
Ex.A7 – Copy of SVR Holidays receipt No. 1533 dt. 12.03.2018.
Ex.A8 – Copy of SVR Holidays receipt No. 1532 dt. 12.03.2018.
Ex.A9 – Copy of SVR Holidays receipt No. 1534 dt.12.03.2018.
Ex.A10 – Copy of SVR Holidays receipt No. 1535 dt. 12.03.2018.
Ex.A11 – Copy of SVR Holidays receipt No.1762 dt. 26.04.2018.
Ex.A12 – Copy of SVR Holidays receipt No. 1761 dt. 26.04.2018.
Ex.A13 – Copy of SVR Holidays receipt No. 1764 dt. 26.04.2018.
Ex.A14 – Copy of SVR Holidays receipt No. 1763 dt. 26.04.2018.
Ex.A15 – Copy of SVR Holidays receipt No. 006 dt. 30.04.2018.
Ex.A16 – Copy of price summury of Air Tickets dt. 08.03.2018.
Ex.A17 – Copy of E-Ticket NO. 5895313933669 of Jet Airways from Delhi to Katmandu on 02.05.2018 and Katmandu to Delhi on 07.05.2018 dt. 25.01.2018.
Ex.A18 – Copy of Flight ticket No. FMNJA2MJTZGWP of Vistara Airways from Delhi to Hyderabad dt. 08.03.2018.
Ex.A19 – Copy of Go Airlines Ltd from Delhi to Lucknow dt. 02.05.2018.
Ex.A20 – Copy of E-Ticket No. 0982679011272 Air India from Katmandu
to Hyderabad Via Delhi dt. 05.05.2018.
Ex.A21 – Copy of SVR Holidays receipt No. 052 dt. 14.05.2018.
Ex.A22 – Copy of SVR Holidays receipt 051 dt. 14.05.2018.
Ex.A23 – Copy of SVR Holidays receipt 050 dt. 14.05.2018.
Ex.A24 – Copy of SVR Holidays receipt No. 049 dt. 14.05.2018.
Ex.A25 – Copy of Legal notice dt. 01.08.2018.
Ex.A26 – Copy of Postal receipt and acknowledgment dt. 02.08.2018.
Ex.A27 – Copy of Legal notice dt. 17.09.2018.
Ex.A28 – Copy of Postal receipts & acknowledgment dt. 17.09.2018.
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Opposite parties:
Ex.B1– Copy of Board resolution (Letter authorization)
Ex.B2 – Copy of Screen shots Evidencing booking.
Ex.B3 – Copy of Indigo Conditions of carriage.
Ex.B4 – Copy of Screen shots evidencing of delay in flight.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
