Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 355
Instituted on : 07.07.2023
Decided on : 21.05.2024
Maya Tiwari w/o Lt. Sh. Chintamani Tiwari Karamaharai, Dewaitha, R/o Devaitha, Ghazipur, Uttar Pardesh. Now at house no. 6, Revenue Colony, Rohtak, Haryana- 124001.
..............Complainants.
Vs.
- Air India, office at Number 113, Airlines Houses, Gurudwara Rakabganj Road, New Delhi, through its Authorised Signatory.
- Make my trip, 18th floor, Tower A,B and 19th floor Tower A,B,C Building No. 5, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase-iii, Gurugram, Haryana, 122002 through its authorised signatory.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Shri Raghav Batra, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri Ashok Dhankar, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.
Sh.Naveen Chaudhary Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that she sought the services of opposite party no. 1 by booking Air Tickets for herself and her family, from Delhi to Bengaluru, through the platform of opposite party no. 2. The complainant and her family members have started their journey from Rohtak to New Delhi and then to Bengaluru by AIR. It is worthwhile to mention that the details of Air Tickets booked by the Complainant are as under:-
Date of Booking | 12.05.2023 |
Booking ID Number | NF7G151RUC4FE8E31114 |
Class of Tickets: | Premium Economy |
Number of Tickets | Four |
Seat Numbers | 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d |
Amount Paid | Rs. 29,840/- |
Number of persons travelling | Six (including two infants) |
It is further submitted that among the six persons travelling, four were adults, and two were infants of not more than eight months. The two infants travelling with the complainant required utmost care, and in light of same, the complainant planned the trip accordingly, and booked the tickets one month prior to the actual date of departure i.e. 15.06.2023. The entire purpose of booking the tickets in advance was to enable all the four adults to sit together in a row and take care of the infants and to enjoy the flight. However, the acts and conduct of opposite party no. 1 not only precluded the complainant and her family to take the proper care of infants, but also harassed and tortured the rest of family members, as the opposite Party no. 1, without any prior intimation to the complainant, reshuffled the seat numbers of all four persons. The complainant and her family members were now given the seat numbers 28E, 13E, 11F, 28F, INF and INF. At the time of boarding and after boarding the plane the complainant and her family members time and again requested the concerned authorities and crew member to allow them to have the seats, as allotted to them while booking, but the staff of opposite party no. 1 chose to turn a deaf ear to their request. Consequentially, the complainant and her family were put in a situation where only one adult (mother) was forced to take care of infants solely. This was the first time when the infants were travelling by air, and hence they feel uncomfortable and started weeping. Whereas, due to the unfortunate situation, the mother of infants was unable to take care of the two infants all alone properly. If complainant and her family were given the seats together as booked, the infants would have given proper care and attention which they richly deserves. The act and conduct of the opposite party no. 1 and 2 amounts to "deficiency in services" and "unfair trade practices". Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may be ordered to refund the amount of Rs.29,840/- as paid by the complainant for tickets, alongwith interest 18% per annum, to pay Rs.10,00,000/- on account of causing mental harassment, inconvenience and deficiency in service and Rs.25000/-as litigation charges to the complainant.
2. Notices of the present complaint were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that opposite party No.2 was supposed to submit requisite documents. As per the computerized system log qua PNR in question, it shows that all instructions attached to the PNR No. 5H9DV2 in question got cancelled on 13.05.2023 for want of requisite documents. Therefore, the Opposite Party No. I cannot be held liable for shortcomings of the opposite Party No. 2 and has no liability whatsoever, towards the complainant. Secondly, the opposite party adheres to the standard industrial protocol of “..one lap, one infant" pertaining to which no single adult is allowed to be seated with more than one infant due to safety reasons. Further, considering the availability of the seats, aerodynamic balance of the aircraft and keeping in mind the presence of two infants, the complainant was provided two together seats, i.e. 28E and 28F, to ease her journey. Hence, the present case is nothing but an afterthought. There is no deficiency in services on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Opposite party no.2 in its reply has submitted that the complainant did not raise any concern with the opposite party related to the seat change issue which clearly shows that the dispute is between the complainant and the concerned service provider i.e. opposite party no 1 and the opposite party No.2 has no role to play and the complainant was well aware of the same. It is humbly submitted that the opposite party merely acts as a facilitator to enable the complainant/user to book flight tickets and the contract of service for utilization of the flight is always between the user/complainant and the concerned service provider i.e. concerned airline. It was further made clear to the complainant that in case of any dispute with regard to the above-mentioned conditions, the complainant/user if makes any claims, refund or damages, then such claims, refund or damages shall be solely against the service provider and the opposite party No.2 shall have no role to play. Opposite party No.2 came to know first time about reshuffling of seat numbers of the complainant and her family member from 4a, 4b, 4c and 4d to 28E, 13E, 11F and 28F at the time of boarding, due to which they became separated and had to face lot of inconvenience, when they received the summons in the present complainant from this Ld. Commission because the complainant and her family had never raised any queries with the opposite party No.2 before this. The opposite party No.2 being a customer centric company, in order to resolve the issue between the complainant and the service provider airline i.e. opposite party no. 1 sent an email to the service provider airline dated 20.09.2023 and the service provider airline replied to the same. The relevant extract of the e-mail is reproduced as under.-
"As passengers have alleged that they were not provided their pre-paid seats 04ABCD. We may apprise you that, it appears from the PNR history that seat request was auto cancelled through system on 14/05/23 at 0007hrs. It is observed from the PNR history that no other seats were blocked for the passengers and no web checked-in had done by the passengers. Hence, while acceptance system allotted the seats which were available at that time. Staff also expressed their inability to provide the together seats to passengers, as flight was fully packed in economy class.
NOTE: provided seats are free seats."
There is no deficiency of service or any unfair trade practice on part of the opposite party and the opposite party went beyond its duty to try to get the issue resolved between the complainant and the service provider airline. It is pertinent to mention here that once a confirmed bookings have been given to the complainant, the role of the opposite party is over and in case of any dispute or deficiency in service/unfair trade practice then the entire dispute is to be resolved inter-se the service provider and the complainant/user/customer and the opposite party has no to play in the same. From the submissions made in the complaint it is clear that there is no liability of the opposite party and the airlines should have assisted the complainant in a better manner. Therefore, the present complaint against the opposite party is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed his evidence on dated 05.12.2023. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.RW1/1 and closed his evidence on dated 14.03.2024. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, documents Ex.R2/1 to Ex.R2/5 and closed his evidence on dated 07.12.2023.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspect of the case as well as the written arguments filed by the opposite party very carefully.
6. In the present case grievance of the complainant is that complainant booked Air Tickets for herself and her family including four persons and two infants from Delhi to Bengaluru, through the opposite party no. 2. But the opposite Party no. 1 without any prior intimation to the complainant, reshuffled the seat numbers of all four persons, due to which the mother of infants was forced to take care of infants alone as the father of infants was having no experience to take care the infants. But due to the said situation he had also to take care of the infants and suffered too much uneasiness and inconvenience. Complainant and her family members time and again requested the concerned authorities and crew member to allow them to have the seats as allotted to them while booking, but they totally refused to hear their requests. Due to the aforesaid situation, the mother of infants was unable to take care of the two infants all alone properly. The infants also had suffered a lot of inconvenience due to lack of proper care and they wept all the way. As per the complainant the entire purpose of booking the tickets in advance was to enable all the four adults to sit together in a row and take care of the infants and to enjoy the flight. But due to alleged situation created by the opposite parties, all the family members suffered mental harassment and could not enjoy their journey. We have perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. As per flight confirmation mail Ex.RW2/3, the flight of the opposite party No.1 was booked on 12.05.2023 through opposite party No.2 and the seats no. were allotted as 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D. The date of journey is 15.06.2023. The contention of opposite party No.2 is that complainant and her family had never raised any queries regarding the reshuffling of seat numbers from 4A, 4B, 4C & 4D to 28E, 13E, 11F & 28F at the time of boarding and they came to know about the same when they received the summons from this Commission. The opposite party No.2 sent an email to the service provider airline i.e. opposite party No.1 on dated 20.09.2023 and the service provider airline replied to the same that:
"As passengers have alleged that they were not provided their pre-paid seats 04ABCD. We may apprise you that, it appears from the PNR history that seat request was auto cancelled through system on 14/05/23 at 0007hrs. It is observed from the PNR history that no other seats were blocked for the passengers and no web checked-in had done by the passengers. Hence, while acceptance system allotted the seats which were available at that time. Staff also expressed their inability to provide the together seats to passengers, as flight was fully packed in economy class.
NOTE: provided seats are free seats."
Perusal of this reply sent by the opposite party no.1 to the opposite party No.2 shows that seat request was auto cancelled through system on 14.05.2023 i.e. after two days of the booking but the opposite party No.1 did not take any step to inform the same either to the complainant or to the opposite party No.2. It was only replied to the email of opposite party no.2 on 20.09.2023 i.e. after filing the present case. This situation would not have arisen if opposite No. 1 had informed the complainant or opposite No. 2 about the alleged situation before the date of travel. It is also observed that opposite party No.1 has not placed on record any document to prove the fact that they had made any effort to convey about the auto cancellation of seat request through the system on 14/05/23. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has taken the plea that the opposite party No.2 failed to provide the requisite documents to opposite party No.1 due to which the instruction on their PNR got cancelled. But to prove the same opposite party No.1 has not placed on record any document to prove that which documents were demanded from the opposite party No.2. Moreover no prior intimation of cancellation of tickets was given to the complainants. Hence there is deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No.1 and opposite party no.1 is liable to compensate the complainant. As per the complaint, complainant has sought refund of tickets alongwith compensation. But in the present case, the complainant alongwith her family members have hired the services of opposite party no.1 and completed their journey. Hence she is not entitled for refund of cost of tickets. However, she is entitled for the compensation on account of mental agony and harassment caused to her and her family members due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.75000/-(Rupees seventy five thousand only) on account of deficiency in service and also pay a sum of Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Opposite party No.1 is directed to pay the alleged amount within one month failing which opposite party no.1 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on Rs.75000/-(Rupees seventy five thousand only) from the date of decision.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
21.05.2024
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
.........................................
Vijender Singh, Member.
