Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/398

Rajesh Panchhi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Airnet Travels & Cargo Pvt.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

vyom Bansal Adv.

12 Apr 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 398 of 29.06.2015

Date of Decision            :   12.04.2016 

 

Rajesh Panchhi r/o H.No.704/11A, Street No.2, Prem Nagar, Ludhiana.

 

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

1.Airnet Travels & Cargo Pvt.Ltd., SCO-147, Landmark Building, 4^th Floor, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana.

2.Indigo (Corporate Office), Level 1, Tower C, Global Business Park, Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon-122002, through its Managing Director.

 

Also at: Indigo, Central Wing, Ground Floor, Thapar House, 124, Janpath, New Delhi-110001.

…Opposite party

 

             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT                            

MRS.VINOD BALA, MEMBER

                                                                                                                                                                                

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :          Sh.Vyom Bansal, Advocate.

For OP1                         :         Sh.Balwant Singh, authorized representative

For OP2                         :         Ex-parte.

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter in short referred to as ‘Act’) filed by complainant Sh.Rajesh Panchhi against Ops by alleging that he planned to travel to Pune for interview of his daughter. Op1 being authorized agent of OP2 represented the complainant that air services  provided by OP2 are outstanding one. So, complainant by        believing the words of OP1, booked tickets for self, his wife, son and daughter for travelling from Delhi to Pune. Rs.5201.24P was the amount of INR per passenger ticket for travelling from Delhi to Pune.However, INR price of such travelling from Pune to Mumbai per ticket was  Rs.6216/-. Rs.4386/- INR per ticket was price    for travelling from Mumbai to Delhi. As travelling with OP2 was from New Delhi, so complainant booked bus tickets with Indo Canadian Tpt.Co., for travelling from Ludhiana to New Delhi by incurring expenses of Rs.15,000/-. On reaching at the airport after check in with OP2, all the family members of the complainant allotted seats apart and far away from each other. Resulting in sitting by the family members with strangers. So, journey remained stressful and unpleasant. After reaching at Pune Airport on 16.03.2015, when the complainant went for receiving his baggage, then he came to know as if three bags had been wrongly tagged by OP2 for sending the same to Nagpur. Complainant immediately filled the Property Irregularity Report(hereinafter in short referred to as “PIR”). Even complainant repeatedly informed the staff and agents of OP2 at airport that his daughter was scheduled for interview on 17.03.2015 at 9:00 AM by Xavier Institute of Management & Entrepreneurship, Bangalore at IndSearch, Law College Road Campus, Pune and all the certificates and documents were in the baggage. It was disclosed to the staff and agents of OP2 that in case, baggage consisting of certificates and documents were not delivered expeditiously, then the whole exercise of complainant and his family of coming to Pune shall be a futile. However, despite the gravity of matter, OP2 did not take the matter seriously and not delivered the baggage until 2:30 PM on 17.03.2015. So, daughter of the complainant was not entertained in the interview. Complainant had to return back without getting the interview of his daughter conducted. OP1 induced the complainant to buy tickets of air services of OP2 and as such, by pleading carelessness and negligence on the part of OP2, prayer made for directing the OPs to refund all the travel expenses of whole of the family members, which comes to Rs.78,150/-. It is claimed that Ops have indulged in unfair trade practice by inducing the complainant to book the tickets with OP2. Compensation for mental harassment of amount of Rs.5 lac sought. Besides, it is claimed that future of daughter of complainant stood pushed into dark and as such, compensation of Rs.10 lac on that account claimed. Refund of Rs.78,150/- with interest @24% p.a. w.e.f.11.3.2015 even claimed.

2.                In the written statement submitted by the OP1, it is claimed that complainant approached for availing the services of OP1 for purchase of tickets from Delhi to Pune on Indigo Flight No.6E-137. Journey for the same was scheduled for 16.03.2015. Tickets for the same were issued to the complainant. Three pieces of baggage got checked at Delhi Airport were to be delivered to the complainant at Pune. Despite all the necessary precautions having been taken by OP2 and for unknown reasons, the concerned baggage was found to be misplaced and did not arrive at Pune on 16.03.2015. As soon as these facts became known to Indigo’s Airport Staff at Pune Airport, they took all necessary steps for enquiring into the matter and a PIR in respect of the same was got registered. Baggage of the complainant was quickly traced and the same was delivered to the complainant on 17.03.2015 in intact condition at the address provided by him at Pune. That baggage was duly acknowledged by the complainant. As per condition No.10.7 of OP2, Indigo will make every effort to ensure that the checked baggage of customers arrives in a safe condition. Acceptance of baggage by the customer without complaint at the time of delivery to be taken as prima facie evidence that the baggage was delivered in good condition. It is denied that complainant was looking for travel to Pune for interview of his daughter along with his other family members. This fact was not in the knowledge of OPs because purpose of visit never asked at the time of booking and the seats were provided on account of seeking of optional services by the complainant and check in tickets issued on first come first served basis. Op1 not to play any role in the issue of boarding tickets. There was    no carelessness and negligence on the part of OPs and as such, by denying all the facts of the complaint, prayer made for dismissal of complaint.

3.                Earlier OP2 appeared through counsel Sh.Narinder Singh, Advocate. Thereafter, counsel for the OP2 suffered statement on 10.09.2015 that he could not receive the power of attorney from OP2 and will file the same on the next date of hearing. However, none turned up on 15.10.2015 and power of attorney again was not filed nor written statement filed, despite the fact that adjournment was granted, subject      to deposit of Rs.500/- as costs in Consumer Welfare Fund on 29.09.2015. On the next adjourned  dates of 15.10.2015 and 28.10.2015, neither those costs were deposited and nor anyone appeared on behalf of OP2 and as such, finding that sufficient chance had already been granted to OP2, but despite that none appeared for him, OP2 was proceeded against ex-parte.

4.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C8 and thereafter, his counsel closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, Mr.Gurjeet Singh, Director of OP1 tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.RA and then closed the evidence.

6.                Oral arguments alone were addressed and heard. Written arguments not submitted. Records gone through carefully.

7.                It is mentioned in para no.1 of the complaint itself that OP1 as authorized agent of OP2 accepted the amount of Rs.78,150/-, the fare of the tickets booked for complainant, his wife, daughter and son for travelling from Delhi to Pune  and then from Pune to Mumbai and back from Mumbai to Delhi. That amount was accepted by Op1 as agent of OP2, so certainly same was bound to be remitted by OP1 to OP2. As per Section 226 of Indian Contract Act, 1872, contracts entered into through an agent, and obligations arising from acts done by an agent, may be enforced in the same manner, and will have the same legal consequences as if the contracts had been entered into by the acts done by the principal in person. In view of the Section 226 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, it is obvious that the contract between the complainant and Op2 arrived at through OP1 as agent of OP2 enforceable against the principal i.e. Op2. The tickets were got issued by OP1 from OP2 in the course of agency and as such liability of principal i.e. OP2 will remain, in the sense that contract is enforceable against principal. As for the acts done by agent in course of agency, the principal is liable and as such, liability of OP2 will remain to indemnify the 3^rd party i.e. complainant. Submission of representative of OP1 in this respect has force. So, claim of complainant for the loss suffered on account of loss of alleged delivery of baggage sustainable against OP2 because it was Op2 or its staff or its employees to ensure that baggage delivered at the destination station.

8.                Complainant has produced letter Ex.C1 to prove that his daughter was to appear for the interview on 17.03.2015 at 9:00 AM at IndSearch, Law College Road Campus, Pune. If daughter of complainant was to appear for such     interview on 17.3.2015 at 9:00 AM, then there was no need for complainant to take whole of his family with him. Rather, complainant as per his own case, travelled from Delhi to Pune and then from Pune to Mumbai and back from Mumbai to Delhi and as such, the itinerancy,  schedule of the complainant and his family members itself reflect that complainant along with family planned to enjoy the air trip with the purpose of getting the daughter interviewed at Pune. In view of that refund of fare of all the tickets should not be allowed because in case, such refund allowed for all the four tickets, then it will  amount to unjust enrichment to the complainant. As complainant with his family enjoyed  air trip from Delhi to     Pune and then from Pune to Mumbai and back from Mumbai to Delhi and as such equitable consideration demand that amount of fare must not ordered to be refunded. As complainant enjoyed the air travel except that of facing the difficulty in receiving the baggage at Pune airport on 16.3.2015 and as such, the complainant cannot be permitted to avail enjoyment through air travel first and then seek refund of air fare for the undertaken journey. Deficiency in service on the part of OP2 is to the extent that it did not madke available three baggage on reaching at Pune on 16.3.2015. That baggage made available to the complainant on 17.3.2015 after being traced out is a fact borne from copy of reply of notice sent by the counsel for the complainant to OPs and placed on record as Ex.C8. It was not made known to the OPs by the complainant at the time of getting the tickets booked that air travelling will be for the exclusive purpose of appearance of the daughter of the complainant for interview and as such, if the daughter of the complainant even after reaching at Pune in time, could not appear in the interview, then the services with respect to air travelling were not deficient except that baggage was not provided in time. Demand of Rs.10 lac as compensation on account of pushing of future of    daughter of the complainant in the dark is unwarranted because Ops were not aware    that certificates and other documents of daughter of the complainant were in the baggage. Baggage stood temporarily misplaced. However, complainant had to suffer mental agony and harassment on account of temporary mis-placement of the baggage from 16.3.2015 to 17.3.2015 because the certificates and other documents pertaining to daughter of the complainant were in the temporarily missed baggage. Copy of PIR lodged by the complainant with OPs is produced on record as Ex.C6 and that of legal notice sent by the complainant to OPs is produced on record as Ex.C7 and all the boarding tickets are Ex.C4, but all the bills of paid fare are produced on record as Ex.C2.

9.                As the baggage was not provided to the complainant on reaching at Pune on 16.3.2015 immediately, but staff of Ops took quick action in tracing out the baggage for making delivery to the complainant on 17.3.2015 in intact condition and as such, for inconvenience and mental harassment caused to the complainant due to improper tagging of the baggage, the complainant deserves to be compensated. Certainly a person bound to remain under immense tension and mental pressure when his baggage is lost after reaching at the station of   destination. Keeping in view magnitude of pressure on mind of complainant, ends of justice warrants that OP2 should be directed to pay at least Rs.50,000/- as compensation.

10.              Therefore, as a sequel to the above discussion, complaint allowed in terms that OP2 will pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the mental harassment and suffered agony. Litigation expenses of Rs.5000/- more allowed in favour of the complainant and against OP2. No relief against Op1 granted. Payment of awarded compensation amount and litigation expenses be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copies of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

11.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Vinod Bala)                            (G.K. Dhir)

            Member                                   President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:12.04.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.