Haryana

Panchkula

CC/666/2019

SAMINDER SATHI. - Complainant(s)

Versus

AUTHORIZED REPRESENATITIVE OF INDIGO. - Opp.Party(s)

ROBIN SATHI

11 Aug 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	666 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	11.12.2019
Date of Decision	:	11.08.2023

 

 

1.     Smt.Saminder Sathi daughter of Shri R.S.Sathi,

2.     Asmi Mali minor daughter of Smt. Saminder Sathi,

        Being  minor through her mother cum natural guardian.

        Both residents of House No.561, Sector-4, Panchkula.      

                                                                       ..….Complainants

Versus                                                                  

1.     Authorised Representative of Indigo, Indigo Head Office, Level-1,       Tower-C, Global Business Park, Mehrauli, Gurugaon Road,       Gurgaon- 122002.

        Alternate address

        Indigo Regd. Office, Central Wing, Ground Floor, Thapper House-       124, Janpath, New Delhi-110001.

2.     Yatra.com(Head office) 6^th & 11^th Floor, Tower D, United Cyber Park, Gurugram, Sector-39, Gurugram-122001 (opposite HSBC Bank), through its authorized signatory.

                                                                      ……Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

                        Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

                        Dr. Barhm Parkash Yadav, Member. 

 

 

For the Parties:   Sh. Robin Sathi, Advocate for the complainants.

                        Sh. Amandeep, Advocate for the OP No.1.

                        Sh. Dixit Garg, Advocate for the OP No.2.

 

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.Briefly stated, the fact, as alleged in the present complaint, are that the complainants had booked the air flight vide reference no.290483652034 of Indigo Airlines of OP No.1 for their air journey on 14.06.2018 from Hyderabad to Chandigarh with a halt at Delhi. The air fare qua ticket was paid as Rs.10,782/-. It is stated that the flight had landed on 14.06.2018 at Delhi Airport but the connecting flight from Delhi to Chandigarh was cancelled. It is stated that no prior information qua the cancellation of the air flight from Delhi to Chandigarh was ever given to the complainants. The complainants were informed to arrange their own transportation for their further journey to Chandigarh and they were assured that the whole air fare would be refunded to their. It is stated that the complainant reached Sector-4, Panchkula from Delhi Airport by Volvo by paying a sum of Rs.1,500/- as travelling charges. The OPs were requested to refund the air fare along with expenses incurred by them on their travel from Delhi to Chandigarh. It is stated that a co-passenger, namely, Mandeep Kaur d/o Sh.Deepak Saini, resident of House No.5D, Tower-2, Crystal Homes, Dhakoli, Zirakpur was refunded Rs.2,100/- within one month, whereas the OPs had failed to refund any amount to the complainants. Since, the grievances of the complainants were not redressed, they were compelled to send a legal notice dated 13.05.2019 to the OPs requesting them for refund of the air fare. The legal notice was replied by OPs without redressing their grievances.  Due to the act and conduct on the part of the OPs, the complainants have suffered a great mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss; hence, the present complaint.

2.Upon notice, the OP No.1 has appeared through its counsel and filed written statement contesting the complaint by raising preliminary objections. It is stated that the Consumer Commission at Panchkula does not have any territorial jurisdiction to decide the present complaint as the OP in its ‘Dispute Settlement Mechanism’ clause clearly stipulated that the courts at New Delhi shall settle all the disputes, if any, between the parties. It is submitted that the complainant had made the booking qua air flight from Hyderabad to Delhi on 14.06.2018 and further, from Delhi to Chandigarh vide flight no.6E-937. It is submitted that the IndiGo Flight No.6E-937 was cancelled on account of adverse weather conditions. The complainants were duly informed and also provided the option of transport by road at IndiGo’s expense. No flights were operational to Chandigarh. The flight was cancelled due to force majeure reason. It is submitted that InterGlobe Aviation Limited has already refunded the amount of INR 1,316/-in the account of the third party/travel agent of the complainants, in terms of the contractually binding IndiGo CoC. The dispute, if any, is solely between the complainants and their third party travel agent. InterGlobe Aviation Limited is unaware of the agreement/ contract existing between the complainants and their third party travel agent. Further, any claim of refund of the amount as paid by the complainants to InterGlobe Aviation Limited, if any, is recoverable from their third party travel agent. It is further stated that the complainants were not entitled to claim any amount directly from InterGlobe Aviation Limited since the booking was originally made through the third party travel agent i.e. Yatra Online Private Limited and therefore, the refund of any amount can only be made into the account from which the payment was made being the account of third party travel agent. The complainants must approach their third party travel agent to claim the said sum. It is further stated that the IndiGo Flight No.6E-937, in which the complainant had to travel from Delhi to Chandigarh on 14.06.2018, was cancelled on 14.06.2018 on account of adverse weather conditions prevailing at Chandigarh leading to closure of the runway at the Chandigarh airport on the instructions of the Air Traffic Control(ATC), which was a circumstances entirely beyond  the control of InterGlobe Aviation Limited. The intimation of cancellation of the Flight No.6E-937 was sent  to the complainant on 14.06.2018 as soon as possible and immediately by way of a Short Messaging Service(SMS) on the complainant’s registered mobile number provided to InterGlobe Aviation Limited at the time of booking i.e.+ 919815987715. The complainants have concealed the fact that they were offered road transport at the cost of IndiGo since no flights were operational to or from Chandigarh. The complainants were offered the option of a partial refund, which was willingly and voluntarily accepted by the complainants. The partial refund of INR 1316/- was duly processed into the account of the third party travel agent of the complainants i.e. Yatra Online Private Limited on 13.08.2019. Therefore, it has been prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1 and as such, the complaint of the complainants are liable to be dismissed.

                Upon notice, the OP No.2 has appeared through its counsel and filed written statement contesting the complaint by raising preliminary objections that the Consumer Commission at Panchkula has no territorial Jurisdiction to decide the present complaint as per Clause 21 of the user agreement. It is submitted that Courts at Gurgaon (Haryana) alone have the jurisdiction to settle the dispute, if any, between the parties as per Clause 21 of the user agreement. It is stated that the OP is just an intermediary between the service providers and the customers and it does not have any interference in the working of the service provider. It is submitted that the complainants had reached at Delhi Airport but the connecting flight from Delhi to Chandigarh was cancelled by the airlines i.e. OP No.1. It is submitted that the OP No.2, having an online booking platform and not a service provider, has a very limited role. Since the said cancellation of the flight was a last minute action by the OP No.1, the same was not informed to the OP No.2 as well. It is stated that, in case of any schedule change/cancellation, the airline is obligated to update the same to the customer directly; Therefore, it has been prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2 and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

3.The learned counsel for complainants has tendered the affidavit as Annexure C/A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-5 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP No.1 has tendered the affidavit Annexure R-1/A along with documents Annexure R-1/1 to R-1/8 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for OP No.2 has tendered the affidavit Annexure R-2/A along with documents as Annexure R-2/1 & R-2/2 and closed the evidence.

4.We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record available on file including the written arguments filed by learned counsel for OP No.1, minutely and carefully.

5.Admittedly, the complainant had arrived at New Delhi from Hyderabad on 14.06.2018 vide flight no.6E-6966. It is also not in dispute that the connecting flight no.6E-937, vide which the complainants had to reach at Chandigarh from Delhi, was cancelled on account of adverse weather conditions. It is also evident as per Annexure R-1/6 that the complainants were sent a SMS qua the cancellation of the flight due to adverse weather conditions at Chandigarh Airport.

6.Now, the grievances of the complainants are that neither OP No.1 i.e. Airline nor the OP No.2 i.e. the travel agent has refunded the remaining air fare to her qua the air journey from Delhi to Chandigarh as stipulated vide Civil Aviation Requirement Section 3-Air Transport issued from the office of Director General of Civil Aviation, New Delhi on 06.08.2010.               

7.During arguments, the learned counsel for the complainants have contended that no such amount i.e. Rs.1316/- as alleged by the OP No.1 was ever credited into the account of complainants and thus, prayed for acceptance of the complainants by granting the relief as claimed for in the complaint.

8.The OP No.1 has contested the complaint, apart from merits, by raising the objection that by virtue of condition of carriage agreement between the airlines i.e. OP No.1 and the complainants, no liability can be imposed upon it. Reliance has been placed upon the following case laws:-

1. InterGlobe Aviation Limited V.N. Satchidanand (2011) 7 SCC 463.
2. Indigo Airlines & Anr. Vs. Aastha Pansari; 2020 SCC online NCDRC 254.
3. Branch Manager, Indigo Airlines, Kolkata & Anr. Vs. Kalpana Rani Debbarma & Ors.; (2020) 9 SCC 424(SC)

9.The aforesaid plea is not tenable in view of the fact that the guidelines issued by the Director General of Civil Aviation Regulating Air Traffic are binding upon airline(OP No.1), wherein it is mandatory to refund the air fare to the consumer qua cancelled air-flight

10.On merits, the learned counsel has reiterated the averments as made in the reply as well as in affidavit Annexure R-A/1 & contended that the cancellation of the flight no.6E-937 was necessitated on account of adverse weather conditions prevailing at Chandigarh Airport and accordingly, the complainants were informed vide  SMS. The learned counsel contended that a refund of Rs.1,316/- was duly made in the account of the OP No.2 i.e. travel agent on 13.08.2019 and thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed being baseless and meritless.

11.The OP no.2 has contested the complaint, apart from merits, raising the preliminary objections qua the maintainability of the complaint on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.

12.The objection qua territorial jurisdiction is rejected being baseless and meritless as the complainants are the resident of House No.561, Sector-4, Panchkula, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.  

13.The learned counsel for OP No.2 reiterating the averments as made in the written statement as also made in the affidavit Annexure R-2/A contended that the OP No.2, which is merely a travel agent had acted as an intermediary between the consumer and the airline, is not liable for any deficiency on the part of service provider i.e. airlines as per User Agreement(Annexure R-2/2). It is contended that no lapses or deficiencies qua OP No.2 can be attributed about the cancellation of the air flight No.6E-937 from Delhi to Chandigarh. Concluding the arguments, the learned counsel has prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP No.2.

14.As per the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties, now, the question arises whether the OP No.2 has refunded the sum of Rs.1,316/- to the complainants as alleged by OP No.1. The OP No.1 has specifically averred in para no.13(n)(vi) & 13(L) of preliminary objections as well as para no.11 & 19 of its written statement on merits that a sum of Rs.1,316/- has been transferred by it in the account of OP No.2.  

15.The OP No.2 has admitted in para no.9 of preliminary objections as well as para no.3 of its written statement on merits, the alleged transfer of Rs.1,316/- by OP No.1 in its favour on 13.08.2019. As per well settled legal proposition, the travel agent i.e. the OP No.2 is equally liable along with Airline to refund the airfare in the event of cancellation of air flight. In this regard, we may safely place reliance upon the order dated 27.02.2020 passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No.45 of 2020 titled as M/s Hello Travel Vs. Harish C.Jain & Anr. The OP No.2 has failed to transfer the amount of Rs.1316/- in the account of the complainants qua unavailed air journey. As per factual position narrated above, the OP No.2 was deficient in rendering services to the complainants. The OP No.1 has been found deficient in rendering services to the complainants, as it had failed to pay the expenses borne by the complainants in their road journey from Delhi to Chandigarh; therefore, the complainants are entitled to relief.               

16.Now, adverting to the relief, it is found that a sum of Rs.1,316/- was refunded in favour of the OP No.2 by OP No.1 on 13.08.2019 qua the cancelled flight from Delhi to Chandigarh; as such, the complainants are entitled to the refund of Rs.1,316/- from OP No.2 along with interest. The complainants are also entitled to adequate compensation on account of mental agony physical harassment and litigation charges.

17.As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OPs No.1 & 2:-

1. The OP No.2 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,316/-, to the complainants, along with interest @ 9% per annum(S.I.) w.e.f. 14.06.2018 i.e. the date of cancelled journey till its realization. 
2. The OP No.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.500/- as travelling charges, to the complainants, from Delhi to Chandigarh.
3. The OP No.2 is also directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,500/- to the complainants on account of mental agony and harassment.
4. The OP No.2 is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,500/- to the complainants as litigation charges.

                               

18.  The OPs No.1 to 2 shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainants shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, 2019 against the OPs No.1 & 2. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on: 11.08.2023

 

 

 

     Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav           Dr.Sushma Garg          Satpal

                  Member                        Member                         President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                             Satpal

                                            President