Date of Filing: 11/11/2015
Date of Order:20/11/2017
ORDER
BY SRI.SYED ANSER KHALEEM, PRESIDENT
1. This is the complaint filed U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 alleging the deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and prays for orders to direct the O.Ps to refund an amount of Rs.26,262/- and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for suffering mental agony and hardship along with interest at the rate of 21% per annum and to pay cost of the proceedings.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that, on 31.03.2015 complainant in order to travel Bangalore to Damam via Muskat and Behrain booked through e-ticket from the O.P.No.1 travel dated 31.3.2015 and when the complainant went to Airport in order to clear period pass in order reach destination but O.P.No.2 at the counter denied to issue boarding pass on the ground that as per the rules that two ladies cannot travel without any company of male member. It is stated that, the complainant had contacted the make my trip through mobile 5 times continuously to enquire about injustice done to her at the time of check-in at the Airport. It is alleged that instead attending and responding said calls the O.P No.1 used to cut the calls without answering and complainant had got screen-shot proof for having called make my trip continuously. Further the complainant was informed at the Airport by Oman Air that they would reissue the ticket to the complainant with minimum charges. Hence the complainant states she has approached the O.P.No.2 at their office situated at Church Street, Bangalore and explained about injustice done to them at the Airport at the time of Check-in. Further it is stated that complainant was kept in dark regarding said rules which the O.P.No.1 ought to have brought to the notice of the complainant at the time of issuing the E-ticket and in such event she would have made necessary arrangements as per the said rules well in advance. Hence the complainant stated that O.Ps were at fault, they ought to have reissued ticket to the complainant and her daughter without collecting further amount from them. It is stated that complainant once again paid Rs.26,262/- as fine to reissue the ticket to them on 3rd April 2015. Hence the complainant alleges deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Thereafter complainant got issued legal notice to both O.Ps demanding to refund the amount, O.Ps despite of receiving legal notice did not yield to comply the demand made in the notice. Hence this complaint.
3. Upon issuance of notice O.P.No.1 entered its appearance through its advocate and filed version. However O.P.No.2 despite the service of notice remained absent and consequently proceeded to place ex-parte.
4. In the version of O.P.No.1, it is contended that complainant should be aware of requirement to travel to the foreign country. It is contended that the rules of O.P.No.1 restricted to booking confirmed tickets, which it had duly complied with. Further contended that complainant would have checked the visa/ticketing requirement of the destination countries and she would have got to know about the disputed requirements of the male member in advance and would have made arrangements earlier accordingly. Further contended that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the complaint. Further contended that terms and conditions agreed between them, at the time of the booking and as enumerated in the user agreement of the parties and as per the terms of the agreement the complainant has to approach civil Court. It is contended that complainant not produced any document that she was suffered any damage or loss by reason of acts/or omissions of the O.Ps. Further O.P No.1 denies all other allegations made in the complaint and on other grounds prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4. In order to substantiate the case of the parties and both parties have filed his affidavit evidence and we also heard the arguments.
5. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the following points will arise for our consideration is:-
(A) Whether the complainant has proved
deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
(B) Whether the complainant is entitled to
the relief prayed for in the complaint?
(C) What order?
6. Our answers to the above points are:-
POINT (A) : In the affirmative.
POINT (B): In the partly affirmative.
POINT (C): As per the final order
for the following:
REASONS
POINT No. (A) & (B):-
7. On perusing the pleading of the parties, it is not in dispute that the complainant with an intention to travel from Bangalore Airport to Damam via Muskat availed services of O.Ps. Further it is not in dispute that the complainant booked the E-ticket and O.Ps issued the same. It is also not in dispute that travel date was fixed on 31.3.2015 and when the complainant went to Airport in order to collect the boarding pass but O.P No.2 denied the boarding pass on the ground that two ladies are not to allowed to travel without the company of the male member of the family as per the Saudi rules. Thereafter the complainant approached O.P.No.2 and by paying extra amount of Rs.26,262/- for herself and her family they are allowed to travel to the destination on 3.4.2015.
8. The crux of the matter is to consider whether the complainant is entitled for the refund of the amount of Rs.26,262/- which is paid in extra to the O.P.No.2 in order to travel to the destination.
9. It is the specific contention of the O.P.No.2 that the complainant should know about the rules and regulations of the foreign country before undertaking to travel and O.P.No.1 is only restricted to book the tickets.
10. It is pertinent to note that it is the duty of the O.P.No.1 and 2 that they are also in a better position to know laws of the foreign land in order to give better service to the customers. Therefore, the service provider should ensure all precautionary measures and safety of its customers and thereby giving better service to protect the interest of their customers. In this particular case they being in better position without verifying the foreign rules issuing tickets is also omission of duty to do so and hence it amounts to negligent in their service and it amounts to deficient in their service. Further shifting the burden on the complainant that complainant should know the rules of the foreign land and their duty is to issue ticket and the very said contention clearly demonstrate their unfair trade practice in order to sell the invalidate tickets. Hence the contention raised by the O.P.No.1 is lame of strength and holds no water. Further on perusing copy of E-ticket, it is evident that complainant and her daughter intends to travel on 31.3.2015 and purchased the E-ticket at page 10 i.e. Annexure-1 by paying an amount and also it discloses that complainant paid Rs.7,750/- towards the purchase of E-ticket . Further on perusal of Annexure-2 it is evident that complainant after denying the boarding pass she paid Rs.26,262/ in order to reach destination. Further on collecting excess amount from the complainants allowed to travel to the destination without any hurdles and the same is evident from the perusal of copy of passport and immigration stamping produced by the complainant. All these facts clearly discloses that, it is the O.P.No.2 airlines without cross verification issued the ticket to the complainant and the same airlines authorities denied the boarding pass at the counter and it made the complainant to purchase ticket in order to travel destination by paying an extra amount. In our view the O.P.No.2 is sole responsible for issuing ticket and causing deficiency in service. However, O.P.No.1 being service provider he should also ascertain the rules and regulations and to ensure that their service should not trouble their customers. But unfortunately due to act of O.Ps complainants suffered. Further on perusal of legal notice and the copy of the receipts it also discloses that prior to filing of the complaint the complainant rightly got issued the legal notice demanding for refund of the amount which is collected in excess by the O.P.No.2 airlines. It is worth to note that every citizen of the country should know the law of the land and ignorance of the law is no excuse. Whereas, knowing other countries law to the customer/citizen is not mandatory but it is the duty of the O.Ps to know the law of the foreign land before issuing the tickets.
11. In the light of above discussions, we reached to conclusion that complainant proved deficiency in service on the part of both O.Ps. In the attendance circumstances of the case we deem it just and proper to direct the O.P.No.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs. 26,262/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization and also to pay Rs.2,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings. However complainant did not produce any cogent evidence for having suffered damages and however, due to cancellation at the counter by denying the boarding pass by the O.Ps complainant suffered mental agony for which O.Ps are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and it will meets the ends of justice. Accordingly, we answered the Point No. (A) in the affirmative and Point No.(B) in the partly affirmative.
POINT No. (C):
12. On the basis of answering the Points (A) and (B), we proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
- The complaint is allowed in part with cost.
- O.P.No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.26,262/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization.
- Further O.P No.1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for suffering mental agony and to pay Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.
The O.P No.1 and 2 are hereby directed to comply the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this Forum within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.
- Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 20th Day of November 2017)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
*Rak
