Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/385/2022

Rakesh Mohunta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Air India Express - Opp.Party(s)

Komal Abrol

01 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/385/2022
Date of Institution	:	24.3.2022
Date of Decision	:	1/11/2023

 

1.       Rakesh Mohunta son of late Sh. S.K. Mohunta.

2.       Rashmi Mohunta wife of Rakesh Mohunta

          both residents of House No.29, Sector 7, Panchkula.

 

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.       Air India Express through its Managing Director having principal place of business at Air India Building Nariman point, Mumbai 400021.

2.       Chief Finance Officer, Air India Express having principal place of business at Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021.

3.       Cruisotel representations through its agent Vikas Bhasin suite NO.7, SCO 37-38, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh 1600017.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Satyendra Kumar, Advocate proxy for Mrs. Komal Abrol, Advocate for complainants
	:	Sh. Daksh Prem Azad, Advocate for OPs No.1&2.
	:	OP No.3 exparte.

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OP/OPs). The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that in the month of December 2021, the complainants planned to visit Sharjah where their daughter is settled  and accordingly they booked tickets (Annexure C-1) from OP NO.1 vide PNR NO. F9M2ZX for 14.12.2021 through its agent OP No.3 by paying an amount of Rs.55300.72. However, just before the day of journey, the complainant No.1 developed a severe eye infections. as a result of which he consulted Dr. Bakshi Gupta who advised him not to travel  on 14.12.2021 as the said eye infection was contagious and could even affect co-passengers.   The prescription slip is annexed as Annexure C-2.  Accordingly the  complainant No.1 informed OP No.1 and 3 vide email Annexure C-3 dated 14.12.2021 about the exigency and difficulty and requested the OPs to assist regarding the change of date for the purpose of travel. Later on copies of doctor prescription alongwith cancellation request were sent to the customer care of the Airlines OP No.1. Since no positive step was taken by the OPs therefore, the complainant booked   new flight tickets Annexure-4 on 21.12.2021,  by paying high fare of Rs.75,482/-. Thereafter the complainant provided all the documents to the OPs for the refund of the aforesaid amount on account of cancellation of the tickets for the reasons as detailed in the mail but nothing has been done by the OPs rather the OP Airlines refused the reimbursement of the amount of the tickets   on account of “No Show” and the copy of  mail received from the OPs is Annexure C-5. The OPs vide communication date 23.2.2022 informed the complainant that an amount of Rs.8746.72 being non-airline taxes has been refunded/processed to OP No.3 on 2.2.2022 and the copy of communication dated 23.2.2022 is annexed as Annexure C-7. It is further alleged that as the ticket booked for 14.12.2021 was  cancelled by the complainants due to severe eye infection to the complainant NO.1 which was beyond the control of the complainants and intimation was also given to OPs but OPs did not reimburse the amount of subject ticket, the aforesaid act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs No.1&2 resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, suppression of facts and that the answering OPs have no privity of contract with complainant, therefore, the OPs are not liable. On merit it is stated that  in fact the answering OPs sold the tickets in bulks to the OP No.3 who further sold the ticket to the complainants and in this manner it is the responsibility of OP No.3 as the ticket were sold by it.  The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. OP No.3 was properly served and when OP No.3 did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, it was proceeded against ex-parte on 23.1.2023.
4. Despite grant of numerous opportunities, no rejoinder was filed by the complainant to rebut the stand of the OPs No.1&2.

2. In order to prove their case, contesting parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the contesting parties that the complainant had purchased the subject ticket  from OP No.1 through OP No.3  from
      Chandigarh to Sharjah for 14.12.2021 by paying an amount of Rs.55300.72/-  and due to severe eye infection to complainant No.1  on the date of journey  the complainant sent request to the OPs for cancellation of the subject tickets as is also evident from Annexure C-2 the prescription slip issued by the doctor and mail Annexure C-3 and thereafter the complainants purchased another ticket Annexure C-4 for their journey  to Sharjah for 21.12.2021 and the said ticket was also purchased by the complainant from OP No.1 through OP No.3 and till date the OPs had not refunded the full amount of the  subject ticket rather the OPs had only refunded an amount of Rs.8746.72,  the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if  the aforesaid act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and the complainants are entitled for the relief as prayed, as is the case of the complainant or the complaint is not maintainable against OPs No.1&2 and liable to be dismissed as is the defence of the OPs No.1&2.
   2. The perusal of Annexure C-1 clearly indicates that the complainants had paid Rs.55300.72 for purchased of subject air ticket  from Chandigarh to Sharjah from OP No.1 through its agent OP No.3 and the request  for cancellation of subject ticket was sent by complainant No.l on 14.12.2021 on finding that there was severe eye infection to complainant No.1 as is also evident from Annexure C-2.  Annexure C-3(colly) is the correspondence  by the complainants to the Ops through mail which clearly indicates that the complainant had requested the OPs to refund the amount of subject air ticket  paid by them  but the same was only refunded in partial i.e. Rs.8746.72. Annexure C-4 is the fresh ticket purchased by the complainants from Chandigarh to Sharjah for 21.12.2021.
   3.  Learned counsel for  OPs No.1&2 has contended with vehemence that as it   stands proved on record that the OPs No.1&2 had  refunded the full ticket amount to OP No.3 through whom the tickets was purchased by the complainant  as is evident from refund details placed on record, the complaint is not maintainable against them. We do no not find force in the contentions of the Ld. counsel for OPs No.1&2 as  it is evident from refund details placed on record that the refund was initiated by OPs No.1&2 on 27.5.2022  for Rs.44400/-  and Rs.750/-  on 1.6.2022 after receiving the notice of the complaint filed by the complainants before this Commission. However, as per the refund details an amount of Rs.8746.72 has already been received by complainant regarding which the complainants have not made any claim in the instant complaint.
   4. Moreover, the aforesaid amounts of Rs.44400/- and Rs.750/-  has not been refunded to the complainant till date as the OPs No.1&2 have come with the defence that they have refunded the same to OP No.3, which  is liable to make the payment to the complainant and the OPs No.1&2 have no liability.
   5.  While countering the aforesaid contentions of learned counsel for OPs No.1&2, the learned counsel for the complainants has relied upon the order passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in M/s Indian Airlines, Delhi & Ors vs. S.N. Seth& Ors. decided on 15.4.2002 it was held as under:-

“it  has to be held that travel agent is the agent of the Indian Airlines and it acts on behalf of its principal, the Indian airlines. If for any negligent act of agent loss is caused to the third party principal is certainly liable. Issuing air ticket on behalf of the Indian Airlines a contract has been entered into between Seth and Indian airlines. In such circumstances principal would certainly be bound by the terms of the contract. Section 230 of the Indian Contact Act provides that In the absence of any contract to that effect an agent cannot personally enforce contracts entered into by him on behalf of his principal, nor is he personally bound by them. In number of cases this Commission has taken decision based on the Law of Contract and contractual terms that no liability can lay on the agent who can neither sue or be sued and it     is the principal who is answerable. Supreme Court in the case of Marine Container Services South Pvt . Ltd.”

 

6. In this manner as it has been proved on record that the OP No.3 is the agent of OPs No.1&2 Airlines and the OP No.3 had acted on behalf of its principal i.e. Airlines OPs No.1&2, the OPs No.1&2 being principal are certainly bound by the terms of contract between Ops No.1&2 and OP No.3 and is equally liable for the negligent act of its agent OP No.3 and as such the principal OPs No.1&2 cannot escape from their liability  unless the entire amount is refunded to the complainants.  
7.  In view of the above discussion it is safe to hold that the aforesaid act of OPs, amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, especially when the entire case set up by the complainant in the consumer complaint as well as the evidence available on record is unrebutted by the OPs. Hence, the instant consumer complaint deserves to be allowed.

4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are jointly and severally directed as under :-

1. to pay ₹Rs.46554/- (Rs.55300.72 minus Rs.8746.72)to the complainants alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of cancellation of ticket i.e. 2.2.2022  till onwards.
2. to pay an amount of ₹10,000/- to the complainants as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to m/them;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainants as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 1/11/2023 mp			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member