Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/536/2021

Rinshikha Thukral - Complainant(s)

Versus

Air India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Rajansh Thukral

09 Nov 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	536/2021
Date of Institution	:	18.08.2021
Date of Decision	:	09.11.2022

 

                     

            

 

Rinshikha Thukral D/o Dr. Rajansh Thukral R/o of House No. 252/2, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh..

….Complainant

Versus

 

1. AIR India Ltd., Airlines office address: SCO 162-164, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh. Telephone No. 0172-2624636, 0172-2624941.

 

Alternative Address: Air India Ltd Airlines House, 113 Gurudwara

 

Rakabganj Road, New Delhi. Email: gmphq@airindia.in, Ashwani.sehgal@airindia.in, contactus@airindia.in.

 

2.  Make My Trip, Travel Agency office address First Floor SCO 169, 170, Madhya Marg, near Sindhi Sweets, Sector 8C, Chandigarh, 160018.

 

Alternative address: B-36, 1st Floor, Pusa Road, New Delhi - 110005, India. Email Address: mydesk-service@makemytrip.com, service@makemytrip.com

 

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:
	SHRI K.K.KAREER	PRESIDENT
	SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA,	MEMBER
	SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
Argued by:-
	Sh.Rajansh Thukral, Advocate for the complainant Sh.Daksh Prem, Advocate for OP No.1 Sh.Gaurav Rana, Advocate for OP No.2

    

 

PER K.K.KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.     Shorn of all unnecessary details, the case of the complainant is that on 11.01.2020 she booked air tickets through OP No.2 for a sum of Rs.44,161/- for traveling from Paris to New Delhi and back. As per the flight schedule, the complainant was to travel on 04.04.2020 from Paris to New Delhi and to go back on 13.04.2020 to Paris.  However on 12.03.2020, the complainant received an e-mail (Annexure C-2) from OP No.2 regarding change of timings in the flight.  Thereafter a message was received from OP No.2 that the flight had been cancelled due to some operational reasons. The complainant contacted OP No.2 for refund of the air tickets amount, in response to which, OP No.2 sent message dated 27.03.2020 that due to nationwide lockdown, all the flights between 25.03.2020 and 14.04.2020 stand suspended. The complainant was further informed that there will be no refund and only rescheduling option was available with the complainant. In this regard, OP No.1 created a credit voucher equivalent to the ticket amount on its website. The complainant could pick a future travel date without rescheduling charges.  The complainant planned to travel in December, 2020 and approached the OPs for rescheduling of the air tickets. After much follow up by the complainant and her father, the complainant managed to book a fresh ticket on 03.11.2020 with schedule of travelling on 04.12.2020 from Paris to Delhi and return to Paris on 10.01.2021.  Surprisingly, OP No.2 after adjusting the earlier amount of Rs.44,161/- un-authorizedly charged Rs.8506/- from the complainant despite the assurance that the future travel date can be picked up without any re-scheduling charges. This clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. In the end, it is requested that the OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs.8506/- along with interest @18% p.a.  on amount of Rs.44,161/- from 11.01.2020 to 03.11.2020 as per the guidelines issued by the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA). The complainant has further demanded compensation and litigation expenses of Rs.40,000/-.
2.     The complaint has been resisted by OP No.1.  In the written statement filed by OP No.1, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that OP No.2 is travel agent and does mass bookings of flight tickets from it. Once the air tickets are sold to an agent, the airlines do not have any authority to monitor it or make any changes in it. Therefore, the relief claimed in the complaint is untenable and unreasonable and the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer qua OP No.1. In the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.     In the separate written statement filed by OP No.2, it has been inter alia pleaded that OP No.2 is merely a facilitator for booking the confirmed air tickets on behalf of its customers. OP No.2 merely forwarded the same to the concerned airlines through the software embedded on its web portal.  The complainant consented to all the terms and conditions of the cancellation policy. Moreover, the complainant is governed by the cancellation and refund policy of the concerned airlines and OP No.2 is not responsible for the same. As per the user agreement, the complainant agreed to the role of OP No.2 being merely a facilitator.  Thus, it has no role in case the flight was cancelled or rescheduled or that the refund was not generated and paid by OP No.1 consequent upon cancellation of the flight. In the end, OP No.2 has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.     The parties led evidence in support of their case by way of affidavits and documents.    
5.     We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record.
6.     So far as the facts of the case are concerned, there is no dispute with regard to the same. It is not disputed that the complainant booked the flight on 11.01.2020 for travelling from Paris to Delhi on 04.04.2020 with return journey on 13.04.2020 to Paris.  The flight was cancelled due to covid conditions and the complainant was informed vide e-mail dated 12.03.2020(Annexure C-2). The complainant was further informed vide text message (Annexure C-4) that the air tickets were not refundable though the complainant could reschedule the flight at any time in future. It was clearly written in the text message that the complainant could pick a future travel date without any rescheduling charges. It is also not disputed that subsequently, the complainant booked the flight on 03.11.2020 for travelling from Paris to Delhi on 04.12.2020 with return journey from Delhi to Paris on 10.01.2021. Admittedly, the extra sum of Rs.8506/- were charged by the OPs.
7.     During the course of arguments, the counsel for the complainant has argued that as per the Circular dated 07.10.2020 (Annexure C-8) issued by the DGCA, in  case of cancelled flights due to covid conditions, interest @ 0.5% was to be paid by the airlines upto 30.06.2020 and thereafter the applicable rate of interest was 0.75% from 30.06.2020 onwards. The counsel for the complainant has further argued that if the amount of air ticket was not refunded, OP NO.1 was obliged to pay interest as per the aforesaid circular but to add insult to injury, the OPs charged an extra sum of Rs.8506/- which clearly amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.
8.     On the other hand, the Counsel for OP No.1 has argued that OP No.1 has no privity of contract with the complainant. According to the counsel for OP No.1, the air tickets are sold in bulk by OP No.1 to OP No.2 who further deals with the customers. Therefore, in the absence of any privity of contract between the complainant and OP No.1, no case is made out as against it nor any liability can be fastened upon it.
9.     Counsel for OP No.2 has argued that OP No.2 is only an inter mediatory and the role of OP No.2 is confined to the bookings and confirming the flights. According to the counsel for OP No.2, in case the flight is cancelled or rescheduled, OP No.2 has no control over the same and OP No.2 simply forwards the information to OP No.1 received from its customers.  Counsel for OP No.2 has further contended that if the flight was cancelled, OP No.1 was to generate the refund. Had OP No.1 generated the refund against the cancellation of the flight, OP No.2 would have paid the same to the complainant.
10.     Having thoughtfully considered the contentions raised by the counsel for the OPs and going through the record, we are of the considered view that consequent upon the cancellation of the flight, the refund was to be generated by OP No.1 though it was to be paid through OP No.2 who acted as inter mediatory between the complainant and OP No.1. Reference can be made to the law laid down in the case titled as Pravasi Legal Cell and Ors Vs. UOI and Others reported in MANU/SC/0732/2020 (Annexure R-4) whereby it has been unequivocally held that airlines shall make all endeavours to refund the collected amount to the passenger within 15 days. If on account of financial distress, any airlines are not able to do so, they shall provide credit shell, equal to the amount of the fare collected, in the name of passenger when the booking is done either directly by the passenger or through travel agent so as to consumer the same on or before 31.03.2021. It has further been observed in the cited case that in all cases where the credit shell is issued, there shall be an incentive to compensate the passenger from the date of cancelation upto 30th June, 2020 in which event the credit shell shall be enhanced by 0.5% of the face value (the amount of fare collected) for every month or part thereof between the date of cancellation and 30th June, 2020. Thereafter the value of the credit shell shall be enhanced by 0.75%  per month of the face value per month upto 31st March, 2021. Thus, OP No.1 was required to add 0.5/0.75% on the non-refunded amount of Rs.44,161/-. However, OP No.1 instead of doing so, charged an extra amount of Rs.8506/- while rescheduling the air tickets as a consequence of cancelled flight. This clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 as OP No.1 had promised rescheduling the flight without  any extra charges as stated in text message (Annexure C-4). Even otherwise, charging of extra amount of Rs.8506/- does not appears to be justifiable on any ground.
11.     So far as, OP No.2  is concerned, in our considered view, OP No.2 being a booking agent has acted only an inter mediatory. In the event of cancellation of flights, if the refund has been generated by OP No.1, OP No.2 could have paid the same to the complainant. Since no refund was generated by OP No.1, therefore, OP No.2 cannot be held liable for any deficiency in service towards the complainant. 
12.     As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with an order that OP No.1 shall refund the amount of Rs.8506/- along with interest  @ 8% p.a. from the date of its charging till its actual payment. OP No.1 shall be further liable to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses.  However, the complaint qua OP No.2 stands dismissed. This order be complied with by OP No.1 within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.
13.     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced 09/11/2022	Sd/-
	(K.K.KAREER) PRESIDENT
	Sd/-
	(PRITI MALHOTRA) MEMBER
	Sd/-
	(B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER