Before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central District] - VIII, 5th Floor Maharana Pratap ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi
Complaint Case No. 125/ dated 05.05.2015
1. Mr. D.D. Dayani son of Shri K.B. Dayani
2. Mrs. Kirti Dayani wife of Shri D.D. Dayani
3. Mr. K.B. Dayani son of Late B. R. Dayani
4. Mr. Rishabh Dayani s/o Shri D. D. Dayani
5. Miss Mahima Dayani d/o Shri D. D. Dayani
All resident of - BA-4/F, Munirka DDA Flats,
New Delhi-110067
6. Mr. R.C. Arora s/o Lt. Shri Harbans Lal
7. Mrs. Bina Arora w/o Shri R. C. Arora
Both resident of -Flat no 2, Nehru Apartments,
Outer Ring Road, Kalkaji, New Delhi
8. Mr. Akshay Beri s/o Shri Suresh Beri
R/o 52, First Floor, Bagh Diwar, Delhi-110006 …Complainants
Versus
OP1-M/s Aeronet Tourtravels Pvt. Ltd.
4/54, WEA, Saraswati Marg, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-110005
OP2-Spice Jet Limited
319, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV,
Gurgaon-122016, Haryana, India ...Opposite Parties
Date of filing 05.05.2015
Date of Order: 01 11.2023
Coram: Shri Inder Jeet Singh, President
Ms. Shahina, Member -Female
Shri Vyas Muni Rai, Member
ORDER
Inder Jeet Singh , President
1.1. (Introduction to case of parties) –The complainants have grievance of unfair trade practice and deficiency of services against OP1/M/s Aeronet Tourtravel Pvt. Ltd. and against OP2/Spice Jet Ltd, since the complainants had taken Delhi-Dubai-Delhi Tour package from OP1 from 11.12.2014 to 15.12.2014, however, on 15.12.2014 the return flight from Dubai was cancelled and for want of making available other alternate flight from Dubai-to Delhi on the same date or till 17.12.2014, the complainants were put to forced stay at the foreign country; they were also constrained to avail the other flight as only last option that too at their own efforts as well as additional expenditure on food and lodging were spent, when they were exhausted with money. The OPs failed to arrange all these, that is why the complaint has been filed for extra fare amount for Rs. 1,91,760/- paid for flight bookings on account of cancellation of scheduled flight, amount of Rs. 62,423/- spent on hotel stay, food, travelling besides compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/-, [being Rs. 1,00,000/- per person for 08 complainants] with interest at the rate of 12 % pa.
1.2. The OP1 and the OP2 filed their separate reply and they opposed the complaint that neither there was any deficiency of services nor unfair trade practice on their part, therefore, no amount is payable. The OP1 pleads that cancellation of flight was beyond its reach and control, for which it cannot be held liable. The other arrangements were made properly for the complainants on behalf of OP1, which is admitted case of complainants. The OP1 wrote to complainants that they may collect the refund of the cancelled flight tickets but they failed to turn up. The OP2 has also reservation that the flight was cancelled on account of technical and operation reasons, which was beyond the control of OP2, therefore, it is not liable on any count. Otherwise, the representatives of OP2 at Dubai had extended all cooperation and assistance to complainants. There was refund of cancelled tickets to OP1.
1.3 It is material to mention that in the complaint, the total amount claimed is Rs. 12,54,183/-, however, there is arithmetic error and the amount comes to Rs. 10,54,183/- and it has also been pointed out by the OPs. Consequently, the complainants in their rejoinders conceded to the error, thence, the claim has been confined to Rs.10,54,183/-.
1.4 The other relevant fact is that on 12.08.2015, when OP1 had filed its reply to complaint. Subsequently, on 08.12.2015 the OP1 brought a cheque no. 500444 dated 07.12.2015 for Rs. 40,850/- inclusive of 1% interest in lieu of cancelled tickets, it was handed over to complainants, which received by them without prejudice to their claims & rights in the complaint. The documentary record of reply by OP1 to legal notice reveals that OP1 had received refund of Rs. 45,000/- from OP2 in respect of cancellation of ticket of six complainants but OP1 had returned amount of Rs. 40,850/-. Thence, the OP1 stopped appearing in the matter, even no evidence was led on its behalf.
1.4 The OP2 had filed its reply dated 11.09.2015, it is under the signature of Sh. Vijay Roy, Senior Manager, Legal. Subsequently, the OP2 was not appearing and it was proceeded ex-parte on 08.12.2015. However, on 22.08.2016 affidavit of evidence of Sh. Vijay Roy, Senior Manager, Legal of OP2 was filed and the case was being proceeded with on merits, although, OP2 was proceeded ex-parte on 08.12.2015. The complainants were also inquired and it was got clarified. Therefore, in view of this background it would be appropriate to decide the complaint on merits.
2.1. (Case of complainant) – The complainants had taken Dubai package from OP1 from 11.12.2014 to 15.12.2014, the flight of OP2 was given in this package by the OP1. The total cost of package was Rs. 41,000/- per person including air-fare. Since, OP1 could not arrange air ticket for 2 persons (namely complainant no. 4 & no. 8), it was advised them to arrange tickets and for them package was Rs. 22,000/- per person excluding air ticket. The complainants paid entire payment for the package to the OP1. The package and services were rendered by local operator Lama Tour of OP1 during stay at Dubai.
2.2. On 15.04.2015 being last day of tour, the complainants received a call from the local operator that they had received message of OP1 that return flight no. SG-12 from Dubai to Delhi has been cancelled by OP2 on account of their internal complaints and complainants had been booked for the same flight on 16.12.2014 instead. The OP1 failed to provide services including hotel stay, food etc but advised to contact OP2 at Dubai airport. The complainants checked out the hotel booked by OP1 for this package, they went to Dubai airport and met representative of OP2 at Dubai airport on 15.12.2014, who stated that he cannot provide any alternate flight for 15.12.2014 or any other services for their hotel stay and food, etc. When the OP2 was requested and insisted by the complainants that services of hotel stay of the complainants was upto 15.12.2014 only and there is no other alternate stay for them at Dubai, the OP2 refused to entertain their request.
2.3 The complainants were having no other option nor any contact in Dubai, they came back in the same hotel and checked in for one day at their own expenses. There was urgency to reach Delhi since all the complainants are working persons, they have official commitments but they were made to stay at their own expenses including hotel stay at Smana hotel in Dubai on the night of 15.12.2014 for 1640 Dirhams for four rooms for eight persons. They had also to pay for their meals during the stay as OPs had not given any respond in this situation.
On 16.12.2014 in afternoon, the complainants again received a message from the local operator that flight on 16.12.2014 was also cancelled by OP2 but no further information for providing alternate booking. Complainants called OP1 also on 16.12.2014 from Dubai but it refused to give any help but advised to contact to OP2 at airport. Complainants again checked out of hotel and met representative of OP2 including Manager Mr. Debashish at Dubai airport on 16.12.2014, who stated he cannot provide any alternate flight or to accommodate the complainants in any other Airlines and also refused to give their services including hotel, food etc. except to process to full refund of the tickets. However, it was unethical and illegal on the part of OP2 to make the complainants strained at Dubai without their faults. The OP2 also refused to give booking of alternate flight for next day as the next day flight was also expected to be cancelled. The officials of OP2 were not cooperating in any manner as they have no instructions to provide any services, the management of OP2 was not good. All the effort of complainants to get services from OP2 failed. The complainants decided to make their own arrangements of getting out from Dubai to Delhi.
2.4 The complaint further narrates the hard experience faced by them to get tickets of the same day of different Airlines online or by visiting different counters at Dubai airport on 16.12.2014 but the same were not available. The complainant no. 3 Sh. K. B. Dayani, aged about 80 years, get one ticket in Fly Dubai Airline on 16.12.2014 for Rs. 25,420.49, he booked it and left Dubai on 16.12.2014. The complainant no. 3 had gone Dubai with his family and son, but he had to leave Dubai alone without any support in such situation.
2.5 The other seven complainants could not get any booking in any airlines for 16.12.2014 as all other airlines were full. The complainants started looking at other option for the earliest alternate flight for next day of 17.12.2014 and complainant no. 4 got booking in Jet Airline on 17.12.2014 against tickets of Rs. 33,089/- one way. The complainant no. 5 to 8 got booking in Indigo Airline for Rs. 25,643/- each. But, no more booking was available in any airline, for complainant no. 1 & 2 for Delhi for 17.12.2014. By making online search, the complainant no. 1 & 2 got booking at Etihad Airlines for 17.12.2014, which was to make departure from Abu Dhabi to Jaipur for Rs. 30,679/- whereas complainants were not having funds for booking, the credit card of complainant no. 3 was used, as it was having credit card limit being only option.
After booking of tickets, the seven complainants had to stay at Dubai but they were not having sufficient fund for stay again and they could not afford the same hotel, therefore, they found and stayed at A1 Jawhara Hotel Apartment, they booked three bedroom apartment for 700 Dirhams in Dubai, they stayed there at their own expenses including food and travelling. Later they checked out the hotel and made departure for their destination.
2.6 The complainant no. 1 & 2 reached Abu Dhabi Airport to board for Jaipur but it was delayed for 8 hours, they have to sleep at airport for whole night, then departure was made on 18.12.2014 at 7 am and they could reach Jaipur at 11:30 am, from where they took Volvo bus and reached Delhi at 10 pm of 18.12.2014, which was almost after three days from original scheduled date.
2.7 The complaint narrates that the complainants had suffered a lot of harassment, mental pain, torture, suffering, loss of work besides monetary losses on account of cancellation of flight on 15.12.2014 by OP2. The OPs also failed to refund the ticket amount of cancelled flight. No alternate flight was provided nor other required services were provided by the OPs to the complainants, who strained in a foreign country. Moreover, they have spent extra amount Rs. 1,91,760.49 /- for air tickets of eight persons from Dubai to Delhi, Rs. 62,423/- for hotel stay, food, travellings, consequent to cancellation of flight by OP2. The complainants also reached Delhi by delay of 2 to 3 days and on that account, they also suffered a lot. The complainants claim the amounts spent on air fare, food and lodging besides compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- per person from OPs.
The complainants had issued legal notice dated 21.01.2015, it was not complied by the OPs. OP2 has not given any reply but the reply of OP1 is false and frivolous, which was also responded by notice dated 01.03.2015 by the complainants. Further, OP1 had charged Rs. 20,000/- for air ticket from six complainant and it is liable to refund Rs. 10,000/- per person for one way, which makes out refund of Rs. 60,000/-, OP1 has no right to retain it. The OP1 admits that it has received refund of Rs. 45,000/- from the OP2 because of cancellation of tickets of six persons but it was not released to the complainants. The OPs are guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in services. That is why the complaint.
2.8. The complaint is supported by documents of package voucher, tour detail, air ticket of six complainants issued by OP1, air tickets of complainant no. 4 & 8, air tickets of six complainants with endorsement for full refund and also such tickets of complainant no. 4 & 8, boarding passes, taxi and Volvo bus tickets of complainant no. 1 & 2, payments receipt to hotel and other expenses vouchers, legal notice dated 21.01.2015 with postal receipts, reply dated 02.02.2015 by OP1, further notice dated 01.03.2015 by complainants with courier receipts.
3.1 (Case of OP1)-The OP1 opposes the complaint that neither there is any unfair trade practices nor deficiency in services, since the OP1 through local operator had provided services of tour; he was not liable for cancellation of flight, therefore, the complaints suffers from mis-joinder of OP1. Moreover, cancellation of the flight was beyond the reach and control of OP1, it is not related remotely to the cancellation of flight. The OP1 is a just tour and travel operator and OP2 is an airlines, the flight ticket of six complainant were booked with OP2 but there is no tie-up between the OP1 and OP2. After cancellation of tickets, the OP1 wrote in reply dated 02.02.2015 to the complainants to collect the refund of cancelled flight tickets but complainants failed to turn up to receive the amount and the complaint was filed. It is an abuse of process of law, since there is no cause of action against the OP1 nor the complainants suffered any harassment. Lastly, the complainant has exaggerated the amount and even amount of Rs. 12,54,183/- was mentioned, which factually comes to Rs. 10,54,182/-, the claim has been increased. The complaint is liable to be dismissed. There is documentary record of authority letter, identity proof of AR and terms and conditions.
3.2. (Case of OP2)- In the reply of OP2, the complaint is opposed by reproducing certain clauses and reference to the Carriage by Air Act 1972 with regard to domestic flight as well as a case Spice Jet Vs. Himadri Sharma (without citation) that terms and conditions of carriage is a contract and it is binding on the parties. (since the present consumer dispute is in respect of international flight or its tickets, therefore, the clauses pertaining to domestic flights are not being mentioned).
The OP2 denies allegations of harassment or inconvenience to the complainants by further explaining that the representative of OP2 at Dubai airport had extended all the cooperation and assistance. The OP2 admits that there was cancellation of question flight but it was on account of technical and operational reasons, the cancellation of flight was informed to the complainant through agent in advance. Since the cancellation was beyond the control of OP, therefore, in terms of guidelines in CAR w.e.f. 15.08.2010 and as per rules, the operating airlines' liability for compensation arises only when passengers were not informed in advance, about the delay and cancellation of flight in which they were scheduled to travel. Whereas, the complainants were informed well in advance, therefore, OP2 is not liable for any compensation. Moreover, the OP2 is a low cost airline, it provides flights at a very cheap rate and in case of cancellation due to unavoidable circumstances, the airline does not provide any boarding, lodging or other facilities. Since, there was cancellation of flight, there was refund of full fare all six tickets to the concerned account from where tickets were booked; in case the OP1 has not remitted the amount to the complainants, then it is a fault of OP1. The OP2 is not liable for any amounts spent on account of air tickets, lodging and stay or compensation for want of any cause of action against them.
The reply is accompanied with terms of carriage and Draft in respect of facility to be provided to passengers by airlines due to deny, boarding, cancellation of flight and delayed in flight.
4.1 (Replication of complainant) –The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of written statement, the complainant admits that there is miscalculation of the amount and let the claim be treated for Rs. 10,54,183/- with interest at the rate of interest 12%pa instead of claim of Rs. 12,54,183/-. However, complainant denies the other allegations in the reply by their rejoinder that OP1 failed to describe as to how it is not a necessary party nor the OP1 could make out its case since it was a complete package of tour of Dubai including visiting places in Dubai and it was the responsibility of OP1 to see that the arrangements are made by the OP1 are duly complied with till complainants come back to Delhi, which OP1 miserably failed to do and as such it is guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency of services. The OP1 has not filed proof of amount received from OP2 in respect of cancelled flight ticket. The complaint is correct.
4.2. The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of OP2 and except the admitted facts by the OP2, the complainant denies all allegations in the reply.
The complainants were not provided of any terms and conditions nor there is any proof of furnishing of terms and conditions to the complainants, otherwise, those are not applicable. The Consumer Protection Act over-rides other Acts, otherwise it is settled law that airlines is liable to arrange flight for passenger, hotel stay and other expenses in such circumstances and airline cannot leave the passengers in foreign country at their mercy. There is no clause in e-ticket. It was an international flight, there was cancellation of flight and not about delay of carrier. There is no record nor proof of fact that flight was cancelled due to technical and operational reasons, besides it could not so, since all other flights were being operated. There was internal dispute going on and OP2 should not have operated the flight from Delhi to Dubai on 11.12.2014, when such internal dispute was persisting. No alternate flight was provided nor other services were arranged vis-à-vis the cost of the tickets of OP2 was the highest for Dubai. Moreover, the complainants also preferred the OP2, because of the arrival timing of its air flight at Dubai, for which complainants paid Rs. 3,000/- extra per person. The complainants reaffirm their complaint and claim as valid.
5.1. (Evidence)- The complainant no. 1 Sh. D. D. Dayani filed his detailed affidavit of evidence with the support of all documents filed with the complaint. The complainant no. 2 Ms. Kirti Dayani, complainant no. 3 Sh. K. V. Dayani, complainant no. 4 Sh. Rishabh Dayani, complainant no. 5 Ms. Mahima Dayani, complainant no. 6 Sh. R. C. Arora, complainant no. 7 Ms. Bina Arora and complainant no. 8 Sh. Akshay Beri filed their respective compact affidavit that their affidavits have been after going through the affidavit of complainant no. 1 and that affidavit is to be considered evidence for the complainant no. 2 to 8 appropriately.
5.2. It is being repeated that OP1 has not filed any affidavit of evidence. However, Sh. Vijay Roy, Senior Manager, Legal of OP (who is also author of the written statement) filed detailed affidavit of evidence, it is replica of reply since all paragraphs have been repeated and has also been styled so. The affidavit also refers terms and conditions and CAR, which were referred in the reply.
6.1 (Final hearing)-The parties were given opportunities to file their written arguments as well as to make oral submissions, however, the complainant availed this opportunity by filing written arguments and also oral submissions by complainant no. 5 for herself and for others. To say, there is no written arguments and oral submissions by the OPs. However, the contentions of the parties will be considered and disposed off on the basis of material on record in the form of facts, features and documents in the light of the case of each party.
7.1.1 (Findings)-The case of each parties is considered and assessed, there are rival plea of each of them. However, some of the facts are admitted facts, like the complainants were provided Delhi-Dubai-Delhi tour package by OP1 and flight of Spice Jet was included in that package. There is no dispute by OP1 that cost of package was Rs. 41,000/- per person, which includes air fare in respect of 6 persons and for remaining 2 complainants, the package was for Rs. 22,000/- per person excluding air tickets. As appearing the tour was smooth till the departure date of 15.12.2014, when all of a sudden the flight was informed cancelled. The subsequent situation emerged and faced by the complainant was due to cancellation of flight, however, both the OPs have their respective reservations.
7.1.2 The OP1 had objection that is not a necessary party and complaint suffers from mis-joinder of OP1. It is opposed by the complainants for want of reasons.
It is apparent from the pleading and legal notice that there is also dispute of want of refund of cancelled tickets amounts as well as the amount charged under that head besides scope of package and services under the package. It could be adjudicated when all necessary parties are present and heard. The dispute could not be effective adjudicated without presence of OP1. Thus, it is held that complaint does not suffer from mis-joinder of OP1. it is proper and necessary party. This issue is disposed off accordingly.
Now other issues are being taken.
7.2.1 First of all, issue pertaining to OP1 is taken. The OP1 has also placed on record terms and conditions, which appears to have been notified/issued by Travel Agents Association of India for the customers/passengers, it includes that no change/no refund in the package, if flight delays/cancels due to any reasons. This proves that the role of OP1 was of tours and travel; it has no role or control with regard to cancellation of flight. There is also no allegation against OP1 on the point of services till scheduled date of 15.12.2014 of departure from Dubai, however, the flight was cancelled and thereafter the OP1 has not rendered any services.
Simultaneously, the OP1 in its reply dated 02.02.2015 to the legal notice of complainant responds that complainants were informed on telephone to collect cancellation refund against received amount of Rs. 45,000/- and after some deductions the refund amount of Rs. 40,000/- was offered (but in the written statement to the complaint OP1 mentions that the complainant was informed in writing to collect the refund, which is contrary to in reply to legal notice). There is no proof/detail of telephone call or information in writing, except reply dated 02.02.2015. The OP1 had made refund of Rs. 40,000/- along with interest of Rs. 850/- during the pending of this complaint on 08.12.2015, being matter of record.
The complainant in its another notice dated 01.03.2015 has carried the computation that there was package of Rs. 41,000/- per person inclusive of air fare ticket and the other package was for Rs. 21,000/- without air ticket, which means Rs. 20,000/- per person was for air fare tickets and Rs.10,000/- one side air fare. The amount proposed refund of Rs. 40,000/- for six person by OP1 was lesser than the actual amount of Rs. 60,000/- charged. The OP1 had over-charged the air fare tickets otherwise why the airlines would made refund of Rs. 45,000/-only.
7.2.2. Now it needs to look at record. In the complaint as well as in the evidence, since there is no direct documentary evidence is led by parties on the point of air fare tickets. The package was Rs. 41,000/- per person inclusive of air fare tickets for both sides and the other package was Rs. 22,000/- per person, without air fare tickets.
It means the fare was Rs. 19,000/- per person fro and to (i.e. both ways) as per charges collected by OP1. The air fare ticket for one side comes to Rs. 9,500/- per person. This also proves that OP1 had collected Rs.57,000/- (i.e. Rs. 9,500/- x 6 persons) as air fare tickets charges for six person. Since, the air flight of 6 persons was cancelled of 15.12.2014, the amount of fare was Rs. 57,000/- (i.e. Rs. 9,500/- x 6 persons) but OP1 had made refund of Rs. 40,000/-. The OP1 has not specified on what count there were deduction of amount by receiving amount of Rs.45,000/- from OP2.
Moreover, the written statement of OP2 as well as reply dated 2.2.2015 of OP1 (to the notice of complainants) also suggests that there was total refund of Rs.45,000/- of six persons, it means air fare ticket was of Rs.7,500/- per person [i.e.Rs.7,500 x 6 persons = Rs.45,000/-]. When the total air fare tickets for 6 person was Rs.45,000/- but OP1 had taken Rs.57,000/- from the complainants but refund of Rs.40,000/- was made (as per contents of reply dated 02.02.2015, therefore, the OP1 is liable to refund balance of Rs. 17,000/- for 6 complainants (i.e. Rs. 57,000/-less - Rs. 40,000/- refunded on 08.12.2015). To that extent, OP1 is liable to pay return amount of Rs.17,000/- to six complainants [namely complainant nos.1, 2,3,5,6 and 7].
7.3.1 By taking into account totality of circumstances, so far OP2 is concerned, the following conclusions are drawn:-
(i) It is proved that flight of 15.12.2014 was cancelled by OP2 and no other flight or alternate flight was made available to the complainants by the OP2 either on 15.12.2014 or on the following date of 16.12.2014, although the complainants were informed that flight will be made available to them on 16.12.2014 in place of scheduled departure flight of 15.12.2014.
(ii) It is also undisputed fact that the flight of 16.12.2014 was also cancelled and no other flight or alternate flight was made available to the complainants by the OP2 either on 16.12.2014 or 17.12.2014.
(iii) The complainants received information from local tour operator of OP1 that the flight was cancelled because of internal dispute of OP2 but OP2 in its written statement took the stand that the flight was cancelled because of 'technical and other operational reasons', which were not under the control of OP2. However, these material facts have not been proved by the OP2.
Moreover, the OP2 was served with the notice dated 21.01.2015, it was not replied by the OP2 and after filing the complaint, the OP2 could have proved its plea with authenticated record of such constrain of technical and operation reasons, if so existed. The expression 'technical and other operational reasons' are general in nature, no specific reasons is mentioned, therefore, it is vague and evasive reasons. It cannot be construed that the things were actually beyond the control of OP2. The OP1, who managed tour package, in its reply dated 02.02.2015 to notice, OP1 shields itself that it has no control over cancellation of flights and it is not liable to pay any amount, however, OP1 does specify any such reason of technical and operational reasons; this infers that its local tour operator had actually communicated to the complainants that flight was cancelled because of there was internal complainants/disputes. In addition, OP1 in reply to paragraph 3 of complaint, does not put other reasons of cancellation than of ‘internal complainant’. Thus, 'technical and operational reasons' of OP2 are just bald allegations, the same have not been proved by the OP2.
(iv) The OP2 is taking contradictory plea that on the one side there are terms and conations which does not make any obligation and liability of the OP2 to make available any alternate flight or next available flight or compensation and on the other side the OP2 took unsuccessful plea of constrains by 'technical and operational reasons' to cancel the flight firstly on 15.12.2014 and then on 16.12.2014.
Since bald allegations of technical and operational have not been proved by the OP2. So far other terms and conditions/CAR are concerned, by reading them together, it culls out that when there is cancellation of flight, the passengers are to be provided with alternate transport to their final destination, as per availability of seats or at a later date at the passengers convenience and they will also be offered free of charge meals, refreshment, hotel accommodation. Since, the there was no fault of complainants nor the cancellation was at the request of complainants, therefore, OP2 was duty bound to make available either the immediate next flight or alternate flight, however, OP2 failed to do it either for 15.12.2014 or for 16.12.2014 or for 17.12.2014 and thereafter the complainants facing all sorts of trauma at the foreign land judiciously decided to initiate their own efforts to reach their homes in Delhi. But in between they were constrained to stay at hotels and to incur expenses of lodging, boarding, etc. besides by buying air tickets of different airlines as per schedule and seats available.
(v) The OP2 asserts that its representative at Dubai had given all kinds of assistance and cooperation, but the aforementioned circumstances proves that there was no efforts or even an attempt for arrangement for making available other air flight or next flight or on the following date. There was just advice for full refund of tickets but no other obligation to provide meal, lodging and boarding. This clearly makes out case of deficiency of services.
7.3.2 The complainants have proved documentary record of their air fare expenses of Rs. 1,91,760/-. Whereas, had the complainants been made available the flight, then the 6 complainants would have to spend Rs.45,000/- (i.e.Rs.7,500x6) and other 2 complainants would also have to incur Rs. 15,000/- (i.e.Rs.7500 x 2) on return tickets. To say, the total air ticket expenditure would have been Rs. 60,000/- (i.e. Rs.45,000+ Rs.15,000/-) for 8 complainants had there been the scheduled flight available on 15.12.2014. Simultaneously, the OP2 had already returned amount of Rs. 45,000/- (i.e. Rs.7,500/-per son x 06 person) to the OP1 being cancellation of 6 tickets.
Therefore, out of total air fare of Rs. 1,91,760/-, spent by the complainants, is to be reduced by amount of Rs. 60,000/- (i.e. Rs. 45,000+ Rs. 15,000/- being one side fair for 8 complainants) and the balance amount of Rs. 1,31,760/- is payable by the OP2 to the complainants un this heading of air fare tickets of return to Delhi. Accordingly, this issue is disposed off.
7.4 The complainants claims other incurred expenses of Rs. 62,423/- for food, lodging, taxis etc as they were constrained to spend because of their forced stay in the foreign land at Dubai on sudden cancellation of air flight. The complainants have proved the bills under this heading.
Since, there was no fault of the complainants and there stay at Dubai from 15.12.2014 onwards was because of want of making available other flight or alternate flight in lieu of the cancelled flight , the OP2 was supposed to provide food, lodging, etc. and there is no reason to decline the same. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 62,423/- is determined in favour of complainants and against OP2 on account of hotel stay, food, travelling, etc.
7.5 The complainants are claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- per person on account of harassment, trauma, inconvenience that too at foreign land. The complainants, during the course of argument have referred Air India Limited Vs. Banibrata Poddar MANU/CF/0337/2019(NC), dod 01.04.2019 (wherein for delayed flight, compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- was determined and allowed .
By reconciling the circumstances, it was a tour package and all the complainants had gone together to Dubai on excursion but at the moment of returning their home, the departure flight was cancelled, which put to them all kind of physical and mental trauma besides financial constrains & segregated them to different airlines and routes to reach Delhi. Therefore, compensation of Rs. 30,000/- per complainant will meet the situation and accordingly an amount of Rs. 30,000/- per complainant [i.e. the total compensation comes to Rs.2,40,000/- for eight complainants] is determined in favour of complainants and against the OP2.
7.6 The complainant claims interest at the rate of 12% pa and keeping in view the trends of rates of interest, the interest at the rate of 6% pa would justify both ends from the date of complaint till realization of the amount. The interest will be computed on amount of Rs. 17,000/- payable by OP1 and on amount of Rs. 1,31,760/- payable by OP2.
8.1 Accordingly, the complaint is disposed off, while directing the OP1 to pay to six complainants [namely complainant nos.1, 2,3,5,6 and 7] an amount of Rs. 17,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6%pa from the date of complaint till realization of amount. There is no other directions against OP1.
8.2 Further, OP2 is directed to pay to all the eight complainants amount of Rs. 1,31,760/- along with interest at the rate of 6% pa from the date of complaint till realization of amount besides Rs.62,423/- on account of hotel stay, food, etc. and total compensation of Rs. 2,40,000/- (being Rs.30,000/-per complainant x 8 complainants).
8.3 The amount will be payable by OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing to pay the amounts of Rs. 17,000/- by OP1 and Rs. 1,31,760/- by OP2 within 30 days, then rate of interest will be 8% pa [in place of 6% pa].
9. Announced on this Ist November 2023 [कार्तिक 10, साका 1945].
10. Copy of this Order be sent/provided forthwith to the parties free of cost as per rules for compliances.
[Vyas Muni Rai] [Shahina] [Inder Jeet Singh]
Member Member (Female) President
