BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No.CC/10/184 of 12.3.2010 Decided on: 28.4.2011 Simi Devi wife of Prem Chand, resident of Cheema Mandi, Tehsil Sunam District Sangrur. -----------Complainant Versus 1. Airpak Travels, Chhoti Baradari, Patiala, through its Manager/Prop.47-A,The Mall, Patiala. 2. National Aviation Company of India Limited, Corporate Head Quarters, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. ----------Opposite parties. Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh.D.R.Arora, President Sh.Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member Present: For the complainant: Sh.R.C.Sharma , Advocate For opposite parties: Sh.K.S.Pruthi , Advocate ORDER D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT The grouse of the complainant is that on 8.10.2009 she alongwith her husband Prem Chand had got two air tickets for the flight No.IC-863 from Chandigarh to Delhi and from Delhi to Kolkata in flight No.IC-264 for 18.11.2009 and further got the return tickets in respect of flight No.IC 263 from Kolkata to Delhi and in respect of flight No.I-864 of op no.2 from Delhi to Chandigarh on 22.11.2009 booked from op no.1. The status of the booking was shown to be confirmed. 2. The complainant and her husband had traveled from Chandigarh to Delhi and then from Delhi to Kolkata on 18.11.2009. On 22.11.2009, when they reached the airport at Kolkata and boarded into the plane no seat was available for the complainant. However, on the request of the complainant and her husband, the complainant was adjusted in the flight. 3. When the complainant and her husband reached the airport at Delhi for boarding into flight no.IC 864 for Chandigarh, no seat was available for the complainant and therefore, she could not fly from Delhi to Chandigarh.She and her husband had to travel from Delhi to Chandigarh by hiring a taxi. The husband of the complainant could not leave the complainant alone. The complainant had to hire a taxi for Rs.5000/-.The complainant and her husband also suffered harassment and mental agony. The husband of the complainant is Life Insurance Corporation of India’s, Chief Advisor/Agent, who had to attend his urgent meeting at Triputi Balaji and because of the non availability of the flight her husband had also suffered. 4. The complainant approached op no.1 and asked for the payment of the damages on account of deficiency in service on its part, but to no effect. Accordingly the complainant approached this Forum through the present complaint brought under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (for short the Act) for a direction to the ops to return the fair of the air ticket from Delhi to Chandigarh in respect of flight No.IC-864 with interest @12% per annum from the date of the purchase of the ticket; to pay Rs.80000/- by way of damages for harassment and mental agony and to pay Rs.5000/- as costs of the litigation. 5. On notice, the ops appeared and filed their written versions separately. 6. In the written statement filed by op no.1, it is denied that the complainant had got the air tickets booked from it for traveling from Chandigarh to Kolkata via Delhi and vise-versa. It is averred that the taxi from Delhi to Chandigarh is easily available @ Rs.3500/-.It is denied if the complainant and her husband had suffered any harassment or a mental agony. Ultimately the op denied its liability to pay any compensation to the complainant. 7. In the written statement filed by op no.2, it is averred that op no.1 had booked 5 passengers on 8.10.2009 for Kolkata- Delhi - Chandigarh sectors under PNR RDF 16 S including the complainant and her husband alongwith three others passengers. The complainant has concealed the factum regarding the booking having been cancelled on 18.11.2009 for Kolkata - Delhi - Chandigarh flight for 22.11.2009. The booking for the complainant was got cancelled by op no.1 on 18.11.2009.Thus, the complainant was not holding booking for IC 864 flight Delhi to Chandigarh for 22.11.2009 and therefore, she could not be accommodated without any valid booking. 8. It is also the objection raised by this op that the Forum does not have the jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint because the complainant is a resident of Cheema Mandi, District Sangrur and no cause of action had accrued within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Ultimately this op also prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 9. In support of the allegations made in the complaint, the learned counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence,Ex.C1, the sworn affidavit of the complainant Smt.Simmi Devi alongwith documents,Exs.C2 and C3 and closed her evidence. 10. On behalf of op no.1, its learned counsel tendered in evidence Ex.R1, the sworn affidavit of Mr.Dinesh Malhotra, Prop. Of op no.1 and closed evidence. 11. Similarly on behalf of op no.2 its learned counsel tendered in evidence,Ex.R2 the sworn affidavit of Mr.M.R.Jindal alongwith document,Ex.R3 and closed the evidence. 12. Written arguments have been filed by the ops and not by the complainant. We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel of the parties and gone through the evidence/record on the file. 13. The simple point to be determined by the Forum is as to whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the ops in having not allowed the complainant to travel in flight No.IC-864 of op no.2 from Delhi to Chandigarh on 22.11.2009 for a valid reason and also as to whether op no.2 could cancel the confirmed ticket of the complainant for the said flight at the instance of op no.1. 14. It is the positive plea taken up by op no.2 that the booking of the complainant for her journey through flight No.IC-864 from Delhi to Chandigarh on 22.11.2009 had been got cancelled by op no.1.Mr.Dinesh Malhotra, prop. of op no.1 in his sworn affidavit has not denied having got the confirmed air ticket of the complainant for the said flight for 22.11.2009 cancelled. We have to accept the plea taken up by op no.2 in this regard. Op no.1 had no basis to get the air ticket of the complainant for flight no.IC 864 for 22.11.2009 from Delhi to Chandigarh cancelled. Similarly op no.2 could not cancel the confirmed ticket of the complainant for the said date at the instance of op no.1.We can understand the harassment and the mental agony, to have been experienced by the complainant and her husband when they were taken with a surprise that there was no seat for the complainant in flight No.IC-864 from Delhi to Chandigarh on 22.11.2009. The conduct of the ops in having cancelled the confirmed air ticket of the complainant for flight No.IC-864 on 22.11.2009 from Delhi to Chandigarh does not seem to be bonafide. Consequently finding that not only there was a deficiency of service on the part of the ops, it was also an unfair trade practice on the part of the ops,we accept the complaint and direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-incurred by the complainant for hiring a taxi to travel from Delhi to Chandigarh and to further pay a sum of Rs.10000/- by way of compensation for the harassment, inconvenience and the mental agony suffered by the complainant. The complaint is accepted burdening the ops with the cost of the litigation of the complaint quantified at Rs.3000/-.The ops shall make the payment of the said amount within a period of one month from the receipt of the copy of the order to the complainant by way of issuing a cheque/draft in her favour. Liability of the ops will joint and several. The failure to pay the amount in time shall oblige the ops to pay the same with interest @9% per annum from the date of the receipt of the order till final realization. Pronounced. Dated:28.4.2011 Neelam Gupta Amarjit Singh Dhindsa D.R.Arora Member Member President
| | Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member | HONABLE MR. D.R.Arora, PRESIDENT | Mr. Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member | | 
