Delhi

North East

CC/314/2015

Raghubir chandra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Air India - Opp.Party(s)

18 Jun 2020

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 314/15  

 

In the matter of:

	Shri Raghubir Chandra S/o Shri Bidhu Bhushan Chandra R/o:- D-3/F2, Dilshad Colony Delhi-110095	Complainant
	Versus
1.         2.	AIR India AIR India Building 2nd Floor Safdarjung Airport, Aurobindo Marg New Delhi-110003   Cleartrip Private Ltd. Unit No. 001, Ground Floor, DTC Building Sitaram Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg Delisle Road, Lower Parel (E) Mumbai-400011	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:       JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

01.09.2015 18.06.2020 18.06.2020

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Concise facts of the complaint sufficient for deciding the case on merit are briefly recapitulated as that the complainant had got booked four air tickets through online ticketing portal OP2 in 20.05.2015 for journey from Chennai to Colombo Via Delhi to be undertaken in flight No. AI 539 and AI 275 onward and return by flight No. AI 276 and AI 42 and AI 540 of OP1 by complainant, his wife, his son and his son’s friend in October 2015 (20^th – 21^st October 2015 onwards and 25^th – 28^th October 2015 Return). As per the displayed fare of ticket shown as Rs. 3,513/- each for four tickets on the website of OP2 as uploaded by OP1, the complainant paid a total sum of Rs. 14,052/- (Rs. 7,280+ Rs. 6,772) for the four tickets through his debit card number ending xxxx8329 vide Trip ID No. 1505204846 and 15052018506 of OP2 and was issued PNR No. V7E30 and HBDD7 by OP1 against booking ID Numbers AIBE 18048773 and AIBE 18048953 dated 20.05.2015. OP2 vide e-mail to complainant’s son dated 20.05.2015 acknowledged the payment received for the said tickets and intimated him of the confirm status of the tickets from Chennai- Delhi- Colombo and back. OP1 vide e-mail dated 10.06.2015 to the complainant’s son issued the E-Ticket itinerary receipt in favour of the complainant and his family and Co-traveler with seat allocation for all four passengers. The complainant and his family members and friend scheduled their programme accordingly. However, to the utter shock and surprise of the complainant, he received message on his mobile phone sometime in the 3^rd week of June 2015 from OP2 about cancellation of the aforementioned air tickets and when he contacted OP2 vide e-mail dated 30.06.2015 demanding explanation, through telecom, he was informed that he could either get the refund of the fare / ticket price or alternatively has to pay Rs. 6,000/- each extra for all four tickets i.e. Rs. 24,000/- for undertaking the journey on OP1 flight as scheduled. OP2 vide reply e-mail dated 02.07.2015 asked the complainant to contact OP2 directly about the cancellation for better assistance. Nonetheless, the status of the tickets booked by the complainant were displayed as cancelled on OPs website even without any request to that effect seeking cancellation ever made by the complainant. The complainant got legal notice dated 24.07.2015 issued to OPs through his counsel demanding restoration of the tickets in question and confirmation of the same but to no avail. Therefore, the complainant has submitted that owing to such acts on the part of OPs of arbitrary cancellation of the purchased and confirmed tickets, he and his family have suffered harassment and mental agony and therefore was constrained to file the present complaint before this Forum against the OPs praying for issuance of directions to the OPs to restore the cancel tickets and grant compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for harassment and mental agony and Rs. 20,000/- towards litigation charges.
2. Complainant has attached copy of E-Ticket booking confirmation e-mail from OP2 dated 20.05.2015 with E-Ticket, copy of e-mail dated 10.06.2015 by OP1 attaching E-ticket itinerary receipt, copy of screen shot from OP1 website of ticket cancellation, copy of e-mail dated 30.06.2015 by complainant’s son to OP2 and reply thereto dated 02.07.2015 by OP2, copy of legal notice dated 24.07.2015 by complainant’s counsel to OP2 with postal receipts and copy of bank statement of ICICI bank of account of complainant’s son for transaction date 01.05.2015 to 31.05.2015 highlighting payments of Rs. 7,280/- and Rs. 6,772/- made to and received by OP2.
3. Notice was issued to the OPs on 07.09.2015. Both OPs entered appearance on 15.10.2015. OP2 filed its written statement vide which it took the preliminary objection of being an online travel company providing intermediary facilities of booking air ticket and hotel reservation in India and Abroad through online mechanism of its website www.cleartrip.com. The entire booking process is system driven and fare rules of airlines are displayed on OP2’s website for any customer / passenger to view and book as per their choice. Based on the parameters, E-ticket / PNR is generated and sent to the e-mail address as provided by the customer. OP2, while admitting the factum of complainant having booked a round trip flight booking for four passengers on 20.05.2015 for Chennai to Colombo Via Delhi with scheduled date of travel 20.10.2015/21.10.2015 and return on 25.10.2015 / 28.10.2015 for Rs. 14,052/- which booking was successful and e-ticket generated, resisted the complaint on grounds that OP2 being a mere intermediary has no control over the content provided by airlines / hotel pertaining to information about schedule, availability, fares, booking policy, cancellation and refund, the same being sole prerogative of the service provider. Every airline booking generates a unique Passenger Name Record (PNR) and any changed therein can be triggered due to schedule change, flight cancellation or equipment change and such change is intimated to the customer concerned through a system generated auto e-mail. OP2 submitted that on 20.06.2015, its system identified such a change in the PNR of the complainant and accordingly a system generated auto message was immediately triggered to the mobile number of the customer (complainant’s son in the present case) which message read as: ‘Trip ID 1505204846 looks like you’ve cancelled MAA-CMB segment with airlines PNR 59BL6A flight AI 273 20OCT. Please call us for further action on 91 9595333333. The OP2 received a call from the complainant who informed OP2 that the said booking was not cancelled by him with OP1 after which OP2 contacted OP1 to check the PNR status of complainant’s booking and was informed orally by OP1 that the particular PNR was temporarily disabled as wrong fares were uploaded in the system for Chennai to Colombo sector due to technical error (Snag) beyond the control of airline and OP1 further instructed OP2 to inform the complainant to make additional payment of Rs. 6,000/- per passenger for all four tickets if they intended to continue with their travel plans or in the alternate complainant shall be entitled to full refund by OP2 without cancellation charges. Accordingly, OP2 communicated the response of OP1 to the complainant. OP1 also contacted the complainant and informed him about wrong fare having being uploaded due to technical snag asking for additional payment of      Rs. 6,000/- each per passenger. OP2 further submitted that despite persistent follow-up with the complainant from June 2015 till October 2015 to either cancel the booking to enable OP2 to process full refund or to make additional payment of Rs. 6,000/- per passenger, to avoid any inconvenience or distress to the complainant, the complainant deliberately chose not to cancel his booking with OP1 or OP2 and also refused to make additional payment till the last moment for which reason, the complainant was declared as NO-SHOW customer by OP1. OP2 while admitting the receipt of payment of Rs. 14,052/- from the complainant for round trip flight booking of four passengers to travel from Chennai to Colombo via Delhi on OP1’s flights reiterated in its defence of having no control operation of airline or a technical snag / error of wrong fares uploaded in its system by OP1 which was beyond human control and submitted in its defence that not only had it orally informed the complainant about wrong fares for international travel having being uploaded on its website by OP1 but also contacted the complainant intimating about the same and was agreeable alongwith OP1 to accommodate the complainant on additional payment. Lastly, OP2 submitted that it is not aware of cancellation of tickets by the airline directly. For the defence so taken, OP2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint as  non-maintainable qua OP2 and no relief to be granted as prayed for. OP2 has attached certified copy of board resolution dated 11.09.2014 signed by its company secretary and terms of service.
4. Written statement was filed by OP1 wherein it admitted that due to certain technical error, wrong fares were uploaded in its system but stated in its defence that as and when  the aforesaid technical error came to the knowledge of OP1, it informed the complainant well in advance to get the tickets purchased by him on wrong fares either cancelled or reissued but complainant failed to act upon either and since the fares which were depicted on its system were less than the actual fares and incorrectly uploaded, OP1 could not allow the complainant to travel on the tickets which the complainant had booked. OP1 gave to options to the complainant to either seek a refund of the tickets or in the alternate get the tickets reissued at the actual fare which was higher than the fare at which the complainant had booked but the complainant due to malafide intention wanted to take undue advantage of technical glitch and did not get himself booked at the actual fares and therefore was not allowed to travel on the incorrect fare payment as he failed to get the tickets reissued on the actual fare of seek cancellation of tickets already booked. Therefore OP1 justified its act of cancelling the tickets of the complainant as rightful and legal having left with no option because of act of omission / commission of the complainant. OP1 denied any deficiency in service on its part and alleged complainant trying to take undue advantage of the technical glitch. On merits OP1 resisted the complaint on grounds that the fare of Rs. 3,513/- of each ticket that the complainant booked was uploaded because of technical glitch and not for any other reason against the Sector by Air India and complainant cannot illegally and wrongful bind OP1 for technical glitch and allowing relief to the complainant on such grounds shall be miscarriage of justice since complainant was duly informed by OP1 that the price at which he had booked the tickets were incorrect and uploaded due to technical glitch and therefore was given option of either seeking refund against cancellation or getting the tickets reissued at their actual and correct price but the complainant failed to act upon the same and it cannot be attributed fault of OP1 for seeking any relied against it. OP1 submitted that since the complainant had refused to exercise any of the said two options given, OP1 was left with no option but to legally and bonafide cancel the tickets for which no approval of the complainant was required. OP1 submitted that as the complainant failed to pay the differential price which was the actual price of the tickets, it cannot make any illegal demand for compensation / damages. Lastly, OP1 submitted that the complainant is solely responsible for price paid by him for his travel alongwith his family on the same sector and cannot claim any money from OP1 for allege suffering. Therefore OP1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. Rejoinders in rebuttal to the written statement was filed by the complainant vide which complainant submitted that no communication regarding technical error/snag on behalf of OP1 was ever made to him and even if there was any technical error on part of OP1, OP1 was liable to compensate the same for complainant and his family members. Complainant further submitted that OP2 was shifting the responsibility on OP1 whereas both OPs were jointly and severally responsible to the complainant for deficiency of service. OP2 was informed vide e-mail dated 30.06.2015 that they had no cancel the tickets and had requested OP2 for restoration thereof to enable the complainant and his family to fly as per schedule in October 2015 but no action was taken by OP2 in this regard. Complainant though admitted that an additional Rs. 6,000/- per ticket was demanded from him by OP2.
6. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by complainant exhibiting documents relied upon as exhibited CW1/1 Ex-CW1/9.
7. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by OP1 and OP2 through their respective Manager (Commercial) and Head (Legal) to reemphasize the defence taken.
8. Written arguments were filed by all parties in support of their respective grievance/ defence.
9. Complainant placed on record copy of chat record held between his son and OP1 Support SJ pertaining to PNR and ticket confirmation. On directions issued by this Forum vide order dated 16.03.2018 to file the actual fares for Chennai- Delhi- Colombo Sector, OP1 placed on recorded copy of internal e-mail highlighting the correct fare as  Rs. 9,984/- for sector corrected as Chennai- Colombo –Chennai instead of Rs. 3,397/-. All parties filed certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act for electronic data placed on record as per mandatory compliance. 
10. Complainant relied upon judgment of Hon’ble SCDRC Delhi and Hon’ble NCDRC to buttress his grievance against OPs.
11.  We have heard the arguments advanced by all sides and given our anxious consideration to the documentary evidence placed on record. OP1 placed reliance on the judgment of Make My Trip Pvt. Ltd Vs Vishal Uppal passed by SCDRC chandigarh on 11.03.2019 in FA no. 463/2018 pertaining to no deficiency of service for technical snag in an air craft.

It is not in dispute that the four tickets in question were purchased on 20.05.2015 by complainant through OP2 portal for round trip travel on OP1 flights from Chennai to Colombo via Delhi scheduled for 20.10.2015/ 21.10.2015 and return on 25.10.2015/ 28.10.2015 for payment of Rs. 14,052/-. It is also admitted that the tickets were confirmed and PNR generated for the same and E-Ticket were issued by OP1 vide e-mail dated 10.06.2015 even confirming the seat allocation. The dispute arose in 3^rd week of June 2015 when complainant was informed by OP2 of tickets cancellation done at OP1’s end due to wrong fares uploaded for Chennai to Colombo sector due to technical error and complainant was asked to either take refund without cancellation or pay Rs. 6,000/- each for the four tickets towards actual /correct fare of Rs. 9,984/-. The complainant refused either of the offers and filed the present complaint seeking relief prayed therein.

From keen perusal of documents, we have observed that by OP1’s own admission, as per e-mail of correct fare as against the original / incorrect fare, OP1 had acquired knowledge of the incorrectly uploaded fares on 20.05.2015 itself at 6:00 PM before which the complainant had already booked the tickets between 9:30 AM to 3:30 PM and the passengers routing was also changed from Chennai- Delhi-Colombo to Chennai- Colombo- Chennai. If that was the admitted case of OP1, the glaring question that arises is why did then OP1 mailed the E-Ticket itinerary to the complainant vide e-mail dated 10.06.2015 and why no intimation of cancellation of tickets in question was made by either of the OPs to the complainant between 20.05.2015 and 10.06.2015. Further as per the chat transcript history filed by the complainant held with OP1, the same reveals that OP1 had confirmed that a ticket is deemed to be confirmed once PNR is generated and ticket is issued for reservation and airline cannot increase the fare on tickets once issued and in the alternate if the tickets fares go down once issued at a particular price, no refund is given for the differential amount. OP1 also confirmed in the affirmative that once the full amount is paid and ticket is confirmed on its flight, the same is valid for travel on its flight without paying any excess fare. The Hon'ble SCDRC Delhi in Go Airlines India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Yogesh Kumar in Appeal No. A-07/730 decided on 12.11.2007 observed that a service provider like airlines is liable for every act and omission and once a person is issued a ticket with confirmed status, he need not reconfirm the details of the flight unless in the event of change of plan or cancellation. Thus, airlines cannot be allowed to cancel the ticket with confirmed status. Hon'ble State Commission held that airlines received the consideration and therefore the direct privity of contract is between the person booking the tickets and the airlines who receives the consideration thereof. Hon'ble State Commission further observed that oftly-taken excuse of technical snag is not only lame excuse but projects poor maintenance or poorly skilled maintenance staff or poor management of maintaining schedule of flights or airlines affairs. Hon'ble National Commission in M/s Indian Airlines Vs. S.N. Seth in FA No. 495/1997 decided on 15.04.2002 held that in issuing wrong confirm ticket due to inadvertence, negligence or otherwise airlines is liable as contract has been entered into between the customer and the airline in keeping with Section 230 of Indian Contract Act and the settled law passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Marine Container Services South Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Go Go Garments (1998) 3 SCC 247 and held airlines deficient in service. In the present case too as per OP1’s own admission, the wrong fares were uploaded on 20.05.2015 for Chennai – Delhi – Colombo Sector due to technical glitch on which fares the complainant booked four tickets. The OP1 realized the error at 6 PM on 20.05.2015 itself but failed to upload the correct fares and instead after three weeks, vide e-mail dated 10.06.2015 to the complainant issued the E-tickets itinerary and 10 days later, arbitrarily cancelled the tickets which the complainant acquired knowledge of by the end of June 2015. This in our view is a clear deficiency of service on part of OP1 towards the complainant for cancelling the confirm tickets and the chat history acquires importance in this regard wherein the staff of OP1 has unequivocally admitted that a confirmed ticket cannot be cancelled for any change of fair or additionally claimed. From the break-up of the tickets fare as reflected in the e- tickets booking confirmation, OP2 has charged a convenience fee of Rs. 700/- each on the two bookings done at 9:36 AM and 3:25 PM on Rs. 7,280/- andRs. 6,772/- for booking the tickets in question. However as per the settled proposition of law, it is airlines who receives the consideration and the agent only received some commission and therefore the latter has no privity of contract with the customer. The travel agent is the agent of airlines and it acts on behalf of its principal i.e. the airlines therefore in the present case OP2 was an agent of OP1 and in issuing air ticket on behalf of OP1, a contract has been entered into between complainant and OP1. Section 230 of Indian Contract 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 principal nor is he personally bound by them.

The Hon'ble National Commission in Mohinderjit Singh Sethi Vs Indian Airlines (2003) 2 CPJ 205 (NC) held airlines deficient in service and negligent for issuing tickets when there was no flight for that day. Hon'ble National Commission in Air India Vs Harjeet Singh in RP No. 1231/2003 decided on 20.12.2002 held the airlines deficient in service for having denied boarding to a passenger despite having a confirm ticket and held that complainant cannot be concern with inter-se functioning of travel agent and carrier when the former is the agent of the latter. Hon'ble National Commission in Air India Vs Prakash Singh (2008) 1 CPJ 334 (NC) held that airlines deficient in service for cancelling the booking of the complainant and not informing him about the same. The Hon’ble Calcutta SCDRC in Nripendra Kumar Bhattacharjee Vs India Airlines Ltd 1997 (3) CPR 392 (Cal.) held that demand on the complainant for extra tax on account of increase in the fare of the tickets post purchase was invalid. The Hon’ble Chandigarh State Commission in Indian Airlines Ltd. Vs. Travlinx Travels Pvt. Ltd. 2004 (II) CPJ 688 (Chand.) held airlines liable for cancelling ticket without seeking instruction from the complainant and complainant being put to great harassment for the same. Based on the exhaustive legal discoursed discussed in the forgoing paras we hold OP1 guilty of deficiency of service for arbitrarily cancelling the book tickets of the complainant belatedly despite having acquiring knowledge of technical glitch of incorrect fare uploaded on the very date of booking and instead having issued an E-ticket Itinerary 3 weeks later to the complainant. Judgment relied upon by OP1 is of no relevance in the present case. We therefore direct OP1 to pay compensation of Rs. 8,000/- for harassment and mental agony to the complainant inclusive of litigation charges.

12.  In view of admission of OP2 being in receipt of and holding on to the paid sum of Rs. 14,052/- made by the complainant, we direct OP2 to refund the cost of the tickets i.e. Rs. 14,052/- inclusive of convenience fee charged by it.  Let the order be complied with by OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
13.  Let the copy of this order be sent to both parties free of cost as per Regulation 21 (1) of Consumer Protection Regulation 2005.
14.   File be consigned to record room.
15.   Announced on  18.06.2020

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member