Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/675/2022

ANIL KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

AIR NDIA LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

DEEPAK AGGARWAL

03 Jun 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/675/2022
Date of Institution	:	15/07/2022
Date of Decision	:	03/06/2024

 

 

Anil Kumar, resident of House No.280, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Air India Ltd., Airlines House, 113, Gurudwara Rakabganj Road, Sansad Marg Area, New Delhi, Delhi 110001 through its Director/Chairman.
2. Make My Trip India Pvt. Ltd., DLF Building No.5, Tower B, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase 2, Sector 25, Gurugram, Haryana 122002, India through its Director

… Opposite Parties

 

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

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for complainant
	:	Ms. Suman, Advocate, Proxy for Sh. Daksh Prem Azad, Advocate for OP-1
	:	Sh. Gaurav Deep Goel, Advocate for OP-2

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Anil Kumar, complainant against the aforesaid opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations, as projected in the consumer complaint, that the complainant, being a Govt. employee, had planned to visit Spain on a tourist visa in order to meet his friend who is resident of Spain. The complainant was having passport (Annexure C-1) for his aforesaid visit and had obtained the ex-India leave from his department w.e.f. 15.6.2022 to 3.7.2022 vide approval letter (Annexure C-2). The complainant had applied for visa and got Schengen visa (Annexure C-3) of Spain valid w.e.f 17.6.2022 to 31.7.2022. Thereafter, the complainant decided to go to Spain through Paris (France) and for that purpose he booked air ticket of Air India/OP-1 through OP-2 for 17.6.2022 on payment of ₹26,783/-. The complainant had also made hotel booking for his stay and copies of tickets and hotel booking are Annexure C-4 & C-5.  On 17.6.2022, when the complainant reached Delhi Airport on the counter No.G of OP-1 alongwith all requisite documents, including visa, and showed his air ticket to the check-in official, the said official asked him about the return ticket. The complainant disclosed to the said official that he is not having return ticket and on this the said official informed the complainant that he cannot be allowed to board the flight on the basis of said single journey ticket and compelled the complainant to purchase return ticket immediately.  The complainant was put into unexpected situation by the official of OP-1 as the entire plan of the complainant was jeopardized and in this manner the conduct of the OPs was highly callous, irresponsible and negligent. Under the compelling circumstances, complainant purchased return air ticket (Annexure C-6) from Paris to Delhi for 3.7.2022, but, after showing the return ticket to the concerned official of OP-1, he was not allowed to board the scheduled flight. Immediately, the complainant sent email (Annexure C-7) to OPs about his grievance and due to the aforesaid circumstances, complainant was even compelled to cancel the return ticket and even on the cancellation of the return ticket, OPs had illegally debited an amount of ₹9,000/- as per Annexure C-8.  In this manner, the aforesaid act of the 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 resisted the consumer complaint and filed their separate written versions.
3. In its reply by way of affidavit, OP-1, inter alia, took preliminary objections of maintainability and cause of action.  On merits, admitted that the complainant reported on the counter of the answering OP on the relevant date and time and as he was not having return ticket at the time of reporting, he was not allowed to board, as per rules of Europe, and thereafter when the complainant, after purchasing the return ticket, again returned to the answering OP at 11:57 hours for the flight scheduled to take off at 12:50 hours, the counters for check in had already been closed and the details are Ex.R-1. In fact, complainant is trying to manipulate the procedure of law in order to extract money from the answering OP.  On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
4. In its written version, OP-2, inter alia, took preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action, concealment of facts and jurisdiction.  However, it is admitted that the complainant had booked the ticket through the answering OP platform on 16.6.2022 by paying an amount of ₹26,783/- for air ticket from Delhi to Paris for 17.6.2022 and since the answering OP is only a facilitator between the concerned service provider and intended guest, as such the answering OP, in the present consumer complaint, was under obligation to provide confirmed air booking/tickets to its customer, which was accordingly confirmed to the customer and after that the answering OP has no liability.  On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
5. In separate rejoinders, complainant re-asserted the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully, including written arguments.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant had booked air ticket, through OP-2, from Delhi to Paris for 17.6.2022 on payment of ₹26,783/-, as is also evident from Annexure C-4, and he was not allowed to board the scheduled flight by OP-1 at the Delhi Airport when he firstly reported at the counter of OP-1, well in time, on the ground that the complainant was not having return air ticket with him and thereafter the complainant went to purchase the return ticket, which was purchased by him from Paris to Delhi for 3.7.2022, as is also evident from Annexure C-6, and when he again reported at the counter of OP-1, even at that time he was not allowed to board the scheduled flight, as a result of which he was compelled to cancel even the return ticket and the OPs had refunded the return ticket amount by making deduction of ₹9,000/-, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant, or if the OPs were justified in not allowing the complainant to board the scheduled flight as he was not having the return ticket and when he came with the return ticket, after some time, the check in counters had already been closed and the consumer complaint, being false and frivolous, is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of OPs.
   2. Learned counsel for the complainant contended with vehemence that  there is no European rule that unless a passenger purchases the return ticket, the airline will not allow him/her to fly to such country from India and in the case in hand, as OPs had firstly not allowed the complainant to board the scheduled flight on the ground that he was not having the return air ticket and even after some time when the complainant again came by purchasing the return air ticket, OPs did not allow him to board the scheduled flight, the aforesaid act clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and the consumer complaint be allowed.
   3. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP-1 contended with vehemence that as it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant was not having return ticket at the time when he reported at the counter of OP-1 and later on when he came back after purchasing the air ticket the counter for check- in had already been closed and even despite of that fact an amount of ₹21,278/- was refunded by OP-1 to OP-2, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP-1 and the consumer complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
   4. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP-2 contended with vehemence that as OP-2 is only a facilitator between the service provider and intended guest, as such OP-2 has no liability and there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part and the consumer complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
   5. However, there is no force in the contention of learned counsel for the OPs as the OPs have failed to show any rule which makes it mandatory for any passenger, flying to European countries from India, to purchase return air ticket and by not allowing the complainant to board the scheduled flight, despite of the fact that when he reported first time at the check-in counter, he had all the documents, including visa etc., OPs have clearly indulged in deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
   6. Moreover, the copy of refund document, having been annexed by OP-1 with its written arguments, clearly indicates that OP-1 had refunded an amount of ₹21,278/- to OP-2 by making deduction of ₹5,000/- and OP-2 has not even refunded the aforesaid amount to the complainant, till date, without any rhyme or reason, both the OPs are liable to pay the total air ticket amount of ₹26,783/- to the complainant.
   7. It has already been discussed above, OPs had not allowed the complainant to board the scheduled flight, despite of the fact that he was having all the documents, and he was compelled to purchase the return air ticket and by the time the complainant again reported, he was not permitted to board the scheduled flight and on the request for cancellation of the return air ticket, OPs have again illegally and arbitrarily made deduction of ₹9,000/-. However, when it has come on record that there was no fault on the part of the complainant due to which the air tickets had to be cancelled, rather it was solely due to the act and conduct of the OPs, both the OPs were obligated to have refunded the entire amount without making any deduction whatsoever. 
   8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is safe to hold that the complainant has successfully proved the cause of action set up in the consumer complaint and the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the OPs are liable to refund the entire amount of both the air tickets, without any deduction, to the complainant. 
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

1. to refund total amount of ₹26,783+₹9,000= ₹35,783/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 17.6.2022 (when the complainant was not allowed to board the scheduled flight) onwards.
2. to pay ₹15,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OPs within forty five days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the payable amounts, mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, shall carry 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 of accordingly.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

03/06/2024 hg	Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
	Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member
	Sd/- [Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member