PER SHRI. S.S. PATIL - HON’BLE MEMBER :
1)This is the complaint regarding deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties for not extending the validity of the Air Ticket of the Complainant and not refunding the unused part of the Air Ticket.
2)The facts of the complainant as stated by the Complainant are that the Opposite Party No.1 is an Airline Company and Opposite Party No.2 is the Travel Company. In 2004, the Complainant wanted to go to Turin, Italy, in order to attend Trade Law Lectures on a scholarship. On 26/02/04, the Complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 and obtained Air Ticket of Opposite Party No.1 to travel to and from Italy. Opposite Party No.2 was informed that the lectures were from 31/03/04 to 23/06/04. There were the chances of the Complainant remaining in Italy for further 6 months for internship and it was informed to Opposite Party No.2.
3)With this background, Opposite Party No.2 made available Ticket No.0579155427362 to the Complainant with conditions printed on it. He was also orally informed that the ticket is extendable in case, Complainant gets the internship. Originally, the Complainant was to depart from India as per schedule, on 25/03/04 but he extended the departure till 29/03/04 and travelled on the aforementioned ticket to Italy on 29/03/2004 flight operated by the Opposite Party No.1.
4)The Complainant further stated that he sought information from Opposite Party No.1 to extend the validity of his ticket upto December, 2004 as he expected to get the internship. On 23/06/04, he joined United Nations International Crime and Justice Research Institute for an initial period of 3 months. Again it (the internship) was extended till December, 2004. At this point of time, the Opposite Party No.2 informed the Complainant that the validity of the ticket cannot be extended. (As mentioned in e-mail of Opposite Party No.2 dtd.29/06/2004.
5)It is further stated by the Complainant that he contacted the travel agency within the premises of the Training Centre of International Labour Organization and got his travel date postponed to 23/07/2004, with a hope that he would convince the Opposite Party to extend the ticket validity till Dec.2004. The Complainant also tried to contact the Turin office of Opposite Party No.1 but this call was not entertained. It is the contention of the Complainant that the conditions mentioned on the ticket issued stipulated that the refund of unused coupons shall be made on such request.
6)It is alleged by the Complainant that Opposite Party No.1 has no policy to entertain the customer’s grievances and even if it has, it is on paper only to show the world and not in practice. It is also alleged that, Opposite Party No.1 has not provided even a minimum service particularly he was in a foreign country where the English language is not spoken.
7)It is further averred by the Complainant that all his efforts to contact the Opposite Party No.1 at Mumbai as well as at Turin, failed. Therefore at last on 13/07/2004, he sent a fax to Opposite Party No.1 at Mumbai.
8)The Complainant has further stated that the Complainant was fair to such an extent that he did not press for the extension of the validity of ticket, as he learnt that it was within the discretion of Opposite Party No.1 and therefore, the Complainant enquired about the cancellation procedure.
9)The Opposite Party No.1 vide its e-mail dtd.16/07/2004 intimated the Complainant that as per the conditions on the air tickets the Opposite Party No.1, is not liable to any refund. However, as per the contention of the Complainant, the condition on the ticket clearly states that a refund is given on unused coupons of the ticket.
10)The Complainant has further submitted that on 22/07/2004, he by e-mail, requested the Opposite Party No.1 to cancel the ticket.
11)Then the Complainant further stated that a cheapest ticket to come to India was offered by Qatar Airways for 600 Euros. He borrowed this amount from his classmate. He also incurred additional cost in returning this amount. The Complainant has stated that the value of 600 Euros in to Indian currency was Rs.36,000/- approximately.
12)The Complainant has stated that during all the above truncations he went through extreme stress.
13)It is contended by the Complainant that the Opposite Parties have given full assurance that ticket is refundable on cancellation but they did not refund the unused ticket of the Complainant. The Opposite Party also caused the Complainant to part with further amount of 600 Euros in order to purchase a fresh ticket to return to India. (In this para the Complainant has not mentioned when he purchased this fresh ticket. Finally the Complainant has prayed that –
a)The Opposite Party be directed to pay to the Complainant Rs.37,631/-, the cost of the ticket alongwith interest from 13/07/2004.
b)To pay to the Complainant Rs.36,000/- towards the cost of the fresh ticket; with interest from 10/12/2004.
c)To pay to the Complainant Rs.1 lack towards compensation for harassment caused to the complainant along with cost
of this complaint.
14) The Complainant has attached the xerox copies of the following documents in support of his complaint. Notice and conditions of contract; A blurred copy of ticket No. 9155 4276 323, Another copy of Ticket No. 9155 4276 32, Invoice No.I5732 dtd.26/02/2004 for Rs.37,631/-, E-mail dtd.29/06/2004 from Opposite Party No.2 to the Complainant, E-mail from Complainant to godiwala@bom7vsnl.net.in, e-mail dtd.30/06/2004. From Opposite Party No.2 to the Complainant, e-mail dtd.10/07/2004 from Opposite Party No.2 to Complainant, Complainant’s letter dtd.13/07/2004 e-mail dtd.16/07/2004 from Samarth to Complainant, dtd.16./07/2004 from the Complainant to Samarth @ air france (Opposite Party No.1) e-mail dtd.22/07/2004 from Complainant to Opposite Party No.1, e-mail dtd.23/10/2004 from Complainant to Opposite Party No.1.
15) The complaint was admitted and notices were served on the Opposite Parties. Opposite Party No.1 appeared through its Ld.Advocate. Opposite Party No.2 did not appear before this Forum inspite of services of notice on it. Therefore, ex-parte order was passed against Opposite Party 2 vide roznama dtd.15/06/2006. The Opposite Party No.1 filed its written statement where in it denied almost all the allegations made by the Complainant and specifically stated that the Complainant had purchased a discounted excursion fare ticket. Such discounted tickets are intended to be used in the travel industry for tourism and as such, they have a limited validity. The Complainant was aware of the ticket’s limited validity. The Complainant was also aware that a normal full fair economy class return ticket cost about Rs.1,20,125/- and it was cheaper to purchase a round trip excursion fare (hoping to obtain extension) (Here the Opposite Party has not mentioned the destination of the fare ticket that is from which place to which place).
16) The Opposite Party No.1 has pointed out that the Complainant paid Rs.36,000/- for purchasing one way ticket for travelling from Turin to Mumbai while he has paid Rs.37,631/- for, to and fro Journey from Mumbai Turin and Turin Mumbai (for return excursion ticket). This shows that the ticket was discounted and not a regular ticket.
17) Opposite Party No.1 has further quoted condition 8 of conditions of contract as contained in ticket Jacket which governs the services of the Opposite Party No.1. The condition 8 is as below. “This ticket is good for carriage for one year from date of issue except as otherwise provided in this ticket”. On the ticket it is also provided that “Restrictions apply.” The said ticket also states “Not valid after 25 July. Thus, the ticket issued to the Complainant was not valid after 25th July, 04. The opposite party has vehemently stated that ticket extensions are not permissible beyond the validity period and there was no refund of the partially utilized ticket. These restrictions are clearly incorporated in the contract. The Complainant was required to purchase a new ticket for return to India after 25/07/04.
18) The Opposite Party has further submitted that the Complainant was well aware of the conditions printed on ticket. Condition 12 Reads as “Refund will be made, provided that, the unused coupons are surrendered within 3 years after the expiry date of their validity.” The term unused coupon refers to unused coupons, where the ticket clearly provides – restrictions apply. It is valid for 4 months only and no refund of the unutilized portion of the ticket is permissible after departure. Thus the Opposite Party No.1 submitted that the complaint for refund of unused air travel ticket is not maintainable.
19) It is further stated by the Opposite Party that, as per the conditions mentioned on the Complainant’s ticket (1) “the ticket was valid for 4 months”. (2) “Date change after departure is allowed free of cost provided, seats are available in your booking class within ticket validity.” (3) After departure ticket is non refundable.
20) The opposite party has further averred that refund can only apply if the one way fare for relevant sector that has been travelled is actually less than the return excursion fair paid by the passenger. In the instant case the Complainant had paid Rs.37,631/- and one way economy class fare of Opposite Party No.1 for travel from Mumbai to Turin, Italy was about Rs 61,670/- while regular one way fare from Turin to Mumbai was about 1585 Euros i.e. Rs.85,000/-. In such case the one way fare was higher than the return excursion fare and hence there cannot be refund of the ticket purchased by the complainant.
21) It is the contention of the Opposite Party No.1 that the Complainant was informed (prior to the booking of his ticket) that the date changes are permissible subject to ticket facility, ticket extensions are not permitted and partially utilized tickets are not refundable. Hence, there is no cause of action against the Opposite Party No.1.
22) The Opposite Party No.1 has specifically denied that Opposite Party No.2 is an Authorized Agent of Opposite Party No.1. It has further averred that condition 12 printed on the ticket and relied upon by the Complainant is not applicable to the present case.
23) Lastly the Opposite Party No.1 has stated that the Complainant is not entitled to any relief and the complaint be dismissed with for cost and damages of Rs.10,000/- be awarded to the Opposite Party No.1.
24) The Opposite Party No.1 has attached one hand written xerox copy of one note with no date, no name, it is not mentioned as to who has written this note and to whom this note was written.
25) The Complainant thereafter filed a rejoinder, affidavit of evidence and a written argument wherein he reiterated the facts and points mentioned in the complaint. The Opposite Party No.1 also submitted its affidavit of evidence and written argument where in the facts and points stated in its written statement are reiterated.
26) We heard the Ld. Advocate of both the parties and perused the papers submitted by both the parties and our findings are as follows –
The Complainant had obtained a Air Fare ticket of Opposite Party No.1 through Opposite Party No.2 on 26/02/2004. The ticket No. was AF 9155 4276 32. However in the complaint this number was shown as 0579155427362. This indicates how the Complainant is diligent in drafting his complaint. The cost of this ticket was Rs.37,631/-. On this ticket the Complainant was to travel from Mumbai to Turin (Italy) and back. This means that Opposite Party No.1 has undertaken to take the Complainant on his Air flight from Mumbai to Turin and bring him on his Air flight from Turin to Mumbai as per the conditions printed on the ticket No 9155 42763 [3] [6].
27) Accordingly the complainant travelled by the Air craft of Opposite Party No.1 on 29/03/04. So far this point of time there was no dispute between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties. The problem started when the Complainant wanted extend the validity of the return ticket which was ment far return journey from Italy to India. It is the contention of the complainant that in the month of June, he tried to extend the validity of his return Air ticket through Opposite Party 2. But Opposite Party 2 informed him that it could not be done. This indicates that the Complainant was aware of the fact that the said ticket validity could not be extended. The Complainant is silent about the period for which it was valid as per the ticket condition. Therefore, we minutely scrutinized the ticket conditions where we found condition 8 stating that this ticket is good for carriage for one year from date of issue, except as otherwise provided in this ticket in carrier’s tariffs conditions of carriage or related regulations.” Thus, the ticket was valid for carriage for one year from the date of issue. At the same time on the ticket in column “not valid after a date was mentioned as 25th July. The year is not mentioned after 25th July. This ticket was issued on 26/02/04. Therefore, as per condition 8 on ticket, it is should be valid upto 25/02/05. But there is also one remark on the ticket at right upper side of the ticket as “Restrictions Apply”. There is nothing printed on ticket as what are these restrictions. Thus, the above mentioned conditions show how the Opposite Party No.1 is dealing with its international passengers. We carefully searched about the restrictions but we could not find any such restrictions. It is the obligations of the International Airline like Opposite Party No.1 to conspicuously clarify below the head restriction apply – what are these restrictions.
28) The Opposite Party No.1 has put the date 25th July below heading – “not valid after”. However, failed to print or put the year of validity. Thus, miserably failed to mention exact date of the validity, then how a ordinary flyer (passenger) would know the real validity of his ticket. Therefore, in our candid view the Opposite Party No.1 is certainly deficient in not clearly mentioning the date of validity on its ticket and subsequently and consequently, denying the extension of the travelling period of the Complainant i.e. a passenger. This necessarily follows that the Opposite Party No.1 is deficient in issuing an ambiguous Air Fare ticket in respect of its validity.
29) It is the contention of the Opposite Party No.1 that the ticket issued to the Complainant was a discounted ticket subject to restrictions. If it is so then the Opposite Party No.1 has to mention conspicuously what are these restrictions by cancelling condition 8 printed on the ticket which validates the ticket for one year and by putting the complete date with date, month and year. The Opposite Party No.1 put the date and month but not year. This is certainly a deficiency in service which caused confusion, inconvenience and mental agony to the passengers particularly to the Complainant in this case.
30) From the papers it is also seen that the Opposite Party No.1 has communicated to the Complainant that any claim against Opposite Party No.1 for refund of unused tickets is misconceived, baseless and unsustainable. Even in the written statement of the Opposite Party No.1, the Opposite Party No.1 has taken the same stand. In this respect we carefully examined the condition 12 printed on the ticket which read as “Refund will be made provided that the unused coupons are surrendered within 3 years after expiry date of their validity. This condition clearly allows a refund of the unused coupons surrendered to the Opposite Party No.1 within 3 years of its expiry. In this connection the Opposite Party No.1 is again harping on the term “Restrictions apply” but unfortunately again there are no such restrictions mentioned in the ticket that the refund should not be made under certain circumstances. No such circumstances are mentioned in the ticket. Nowhere, it is mentioned on the ticket that if the ticket is discounted there would be no refund.
31) It is the contention of the Opposite Party No.1 that “After departure TKT is non- refundable”. We actually scrutinized for this provision in the ticket, on back sight of the tickets, where all the conditions are printed but we could not find such provision/condition on the ticket. Thus, putting such a condition which is not anywhere in the ticket or in the Carriage Act, the Opposite Party No.1 is certainly misleading the passengers as well as this Forum also. Therefore, there is no doubt that under any circumstances, the condition 12 is applicable to the Complainant and the unused ticket is refundable. By denying the refund of the unused ticket the Opposite Party No.1 has avoided its contractual liability by no paying the refund and hence, there is a deficiency in service on its part.
32) From papers we do not find anything against the Opposite Party No.2 who is a Travelling Company. Its’ obligations is only issuing the Air tickets to the Complainant. The main services were to be rendered by Opposite Party No.1. The deficiency alleged was non extension of the validity of the air ticket and non-refunding the unused air ticket. These obligations were to be complied with, by Opposite Party No.1 only and Opposite Party No2 has a very little role in these contractual obligations. Therefore, in our candid view, no deficiency in service is established against Opposite Party No.2. Therefore, complaint against Opposite Party No.2 needs to be dismissed.
33) In written statement the Opposite Party No.1 it was contended that “Refunds can only apply if the one way fare for the relevant sector that has been travelled in actually les than the return excursion fare paid by the passenger.” We carefully studied the case papers submitted by the Opposite Party No.1 alongwith the affidavit of evidence but we did not find such provisions in any of the documents. Probably this is its own finding in order to avoid its above said liability.
34) In view of the above observations, we think it just and proper that the Complainant deserves refund of his unused Air ticket from Turin to India and compensation for mental agony caused to him because of deficiency in service as explained above. Therefore, we pass the order as follows –
O R D E R
i.Complaint No.52/2005 is partly allowed.
ii The Opposite Party No.1 is directed to refund the cost of the unused Air fare ticket from Italy (Turin) to India
(Mumbai) alongwith 9 % interest on the said amount from 1st December, 04 till its realization.
iii.Opposite Party No1 is also directed to pay to the Complainant a compensation of Rs.10,000/-(Rs. Ten Thousand
Only) towards mental agony caused to the Complainant because of the deficiency in service on the part of
Opposite Party No.1.
iv.Opposite Party No. 1 is also directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rs. Three Thousand Only) to the Complainant towards
cost of this complaint.
v.Complaint against Opposite Party No.2 is hereby dismissed.
vi.Opposite Party Nos.1 is directed to comply with the above order within 30 days from the receipt of this order.
vii.Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.
