Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/469/2021

Ruchee Suri - Complainant(s)

Versus

Air India Express - Opp.Party(s)

Sudhir Kashyap

24 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

1.   Ruchee Suri aged about 40 years wife of Sh. Ashwani Dhiman.

2.   Shivay Dhiman aged about 3 years through her natural & legal guardian mother Ruchee Suri;

3. Aditi Dhiman aged about 21 years daughter of Smt. Sanjana Suri;

     Through their General Power of Attorney (GPA) Ramesh Suri W/o Late Sh. Madan Lal Suri, all residents of House/flat No.5806-A, 1^st Floor, Sector-38 West, Chandigarh(UT).

. … Complainants

V E R S U S

1. Air India Express having its registered office at 1^st Floor, Old Operations Building, Air India Complex Old Airport, Santa Cruz (East) Mumbai 400029, Maharashtra and Corporate headquarters at Air India Express Building, Gandhi Square, D.H. Road, Kochi-682016, Kerala & City office at SCO 162-164, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh & Chandigarh International Airport, New Civil Air Terminal, Mohali District, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab-140306.

Email: Gotogate International AB (Gotogate), having its registered office at Box 1340, SE-75143, Uppsala, Sweden.

Email: Director General of Civil Aviation having its office at Aurobindo Marg, opposite Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi 110003.

  … Opposite Parties

Per surjeet kaur, Member

1. Briefly stated that the complainants booked air ticket for travelling from New Delhi to London through OP No.2 on 20.4.2021.  The same was confirmed after payment of Rs.1,04,596/- and tax invoice was generated by OP No.1 qua New Delhi to Dubai flight. On the day of travel i.e. 21.4.2021 the complainants were denied to board the flight by the ground officials of the OP No.1  on the ground that no transit passenger is allowed in Air India Express to Dubai due to  operative government rule as on 21.4.2021 and only a limited category of passengers are permitted to UAE.  The OP No.1 assured refund of the booking amount. It is averred that complainant No.1 is a citizen of United Kingdom and there is not mandatory requirement for a British Citizen to hold an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card. Further as per guidelines and rules issued by the government of United Kingdom Holders of full British passports will be granted a free of charge visitor/tourist visa upon arrival in the UAE. No application of travel in advance is needed. Therefore, the complainants were misled by OP No.1 in as much as there is no requirement for a British Citizen to obtain a visa in advance for travelling to UAE. It is alleged that as the OP No.1 did not allow the complainants to board the flight therefore the complainants had to incur additional amount of R.3,95,365/-  to reach the destination. It is further alleged that despite repeated requests and emails the OPs No.1 & 2 did not refund the amount to the complainants though as per instructions of DGCA they were required to refund the amount. Ultimately, the complainants sent legal notice dated 3.6.2021 to OPs No.1 & 2 for refund of the amount but  OP No.1 vide reply dated 12.7.2021 wrongly claimed that Rs.22,738.54 has been refunded. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.
2. The Opposite Party NO.1 in its reply stated that the flight from Delhi to Dubai was booked with Air India Express under the booking reference EBNLFV through travel agent fusion as per its reservation system record.  Gotogate is an independent travel agent not associated with it and so it is not responsible for the connections created by them. It is averred that the flights from India to UAE should be destined for UAE or any country in South America or Africa only. And the said condition was valid on 21.4.2021. Since the travel restrictions keep on changing, passengers were required to check for the latest travel updates on the government websites. This information was already available on the website blog UAE Travel Update that the Air India Express will not be accepting or taking responsibility for any onward connections on other carriers/Airlines. Air India Express is a point to point carrier and does not have an interline/Codeshare agreement with any other Airlines etc. It is averred that refund was processed and details thereof were sent to Travel fusion and they had processed the refund back to OTA.  Denying all other allegations made in the complaint a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3. In its written reply OP No.2 while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that it only facilitated the transaction of booking air ticket as an intermediary or as an agent of service provider and it initiated the refund process while following mandate of clause 9.3 of terms and conditions of booking according to which it acts as an intermediary and on receiving the amount of refund from service provider, liable to process the same. The amount of Rs.22,728.54 was received from OP No.1 and the same was duly refunded to the complainants on 28.8.2021.  It is averred that there is no deficiency on the part of the answering OP. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied being wrong.
4. Opposite party No.3 filed short reply stating that being the safety regulator it has no role to play in the matter in dispute. It is averred that there is no deficiency on the part of the answering OP.
5. Opposite Party No.5 in its reply stated that the complaint is liable to be dismissed qua it as the complainants have failed to establish any cause of action against OP NO.5. It is averred that as per own admission of the complainants on account of alleged deficiency in service by OP No.1 and OP no.2 they failed to report prior to the scheduled departure time of the flight.  Therefore OP No.5 was compelled to treat the complainants as ‘No show’. Denying deficiency on its part a prayer for dismissal of the complainant has been made.  
6. OP No.4 did not turn up despite due service, hence vide order dated 18.05.2022 it was proceeded against ex-parte. Whereas none turned up on behalf of OP No.3 to file evidence in the form of affidavit on 18.5.2022, hence it was proceed against ex-parte.
7. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated
8. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.  
10. The sole grouse of the complainant through present complaint is that she was without any reasons arbitrarily/illegally was not allowed to board the flight of OP No.1 for which the ticket was booked through OP No.2.
11. The stand taken by the OP No.1 (the airlines) and OP No.2 (the booking agent) is that it was for the complainants to enquire beforehand her eligibility to fly to UAE in advance. It has also been contended that an amount of Rs.22,728.54/- has already been refunded to the complainants on 28.08.2021 as per the applicable rules. It is claimed by OP No.1 & 2 that there is no deficiency in service on their part, hence complaint deserves to be dismissed.
12. Perusal of the documents on record clearly reveal that the present complaint is filed on 19.07.2021. After filing of the present case only the amount of Rs.22,728.54/- was refunded to the complainants. Meaning thereby due to the delayed response of the OPs, the complainant was forced to indulge in the present unnecessary litigation which was totally avoidable. The issue of denial of boarding the flight by the ground officials of OP No.1 cropped upon 21.04.2021 and admittedly the ticket was booked from New Delhi to London through OP No.2 on 20.04.2021. We are of the opinion that the rules which have been made applicable to the complainants were very much in the knowledge of the OP No.2 at the time of getting the air tickets booked but it was its negligent attitude that it did not covey the same to the complainant in advance for which the complainant had to face so much physical and mental harassment. Hence, the act of OP No.2 to book a ticket just one day before the day of flight without conveying the applicable rules itself proves deficiency in providing proper services. So far as the question of refund of the entire spent amount is concerned the OP No.1 has already refunded the applicable charges/amount to the complainant through OP No.2. Hence, we opine that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.

13.  In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. OP No.2 is directed as under:-

1. to pay 50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
2. to pay 20,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

14. This order be complied with by the OP No.2 within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.   

15. The consumer complaint qua OP No.1, 3, 4 & 5 stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

16.  Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned