Haryana

StateCommission

CC/226/2019

CHANCHAL BAJAJ - Complainant(s)

Versus

AVA SPA HOLIDAYS PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SHOBIT PHUTELA

29 Sep 2022

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                Consumer Complaint  No.226 of  2019

Date of the Institution:12.07.2019

Date of Final Hearing:    29.09.2022

Date of pronouncement : 22.12.2022

 

Mrs.Chanchal Bajaj W/o Mr. Harvinder Bajaj, R/o H.No.916, Sector-8, Panchkula, Haryana.

                                                                   .….Complainant

Versus

AVA Spa Holidays  (I) Pvt. Ltd. Delhi Rectangle, 4^th Floor,Rectangle 1, Commercial Complex D4, Saket, New Delhi-110017.

                                                          .….Opposite Party

 

CORAM:   S.P.Sood, Judicial Member

                   Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Shubnit Hans, Advocate for the complainants.

Mr.Rohit Joshi, Advocate for the Opposite Party.

 

O R D E R

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

                    The brief facts giving rise for the disposal of the present complaint  are that the complainant approached the opposite party in the month of February 2019 for booking air ambulance to transfer complainant’s son Late Mr. Munish Bajaj from Chandigarh to  Bangalore. The patient was to be admitted at Health Care Global Enterprises Hospital, Bangalore on an urgent basis as it was an emergency case. After conversation between family members and OP company officials , an air ambulance was booked for 14.02.2019 after making the complete payment charges of Rs.6,00,000/-.The scheduled date of travel was fixed for 14.02.2019, but, on the appointed day OP company informed her that due to bad weather conditions, the aircraft could not depart from Delhi and arrive at Chandigarh to transfer the patient from Chandigarh to Bangalore. However, the OP company assured that this aircraft will be able to fly on the next date i.e. 15.02.2019, but, OP again informed that due to persisting of bad weather conditions, the aircraft would not fly. However as it was an emergent situation so the complainant requested OP to make some other arrangement of some other aircraft but the OP informed about their inability to arrange for an alternative aircraft due to bad weather conditions. Since the complainant had lost her trust in the opposite party company, so complainant was forced to book another air ambulance from another agency which costed complainant a sum of Rs.11,00,000/-. The said ambulance was booked only because of deficiency in service on the part of OP. The complainant requested the OP again and again to refund the deposited amount of Rs. Six lacs, but,  OP failed to refund the amount. Faced with this situation, she sent legal notice dated 10.04.2019, 15.04.2019  but OP completely ignored its liability to do the needful.  Thus there being deficiency in service on the part of the OP, hence the complaint.

2.      Notice issued to the OP.  Reply filed.  It was submitted that work of OP was only to book aeroplane, but, the contract arises between principal and third party. It was admitted to the extent that booking was made and Rs.Six lacs were deposited. The airplane booked could not fly owing to bad weather. Thereafter an alternate option of bigger aircraft was given to the complainant, but she rejected. The OP also offered upgraded plane which was duly informed to Smt.Chanchal at a cost of Rs.13,00,000/- but complainant booked it from another operator. Rest of the contents of corresponding para were denied. Thus there  being no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, complaint deserves to be dismissed.

3.                When the complaint was posted for recording evidence of the parties, one of the complainant-Chanchal Bajaj in her evidence has tendered the affidavit Ex.C-1/A vide which she has reiterated all the averments taken in the complaint and further tendered the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11 and closed her evidence.

4.                On the other hand, in order to rebut the evidence led on behalf of the complainant, O.P. has also tendered the affidavit of Mr.Aditya Bahl, Director of Ava Spa Holidys India Pvt.Ltd., Delhi Ex. R1/A and further tendered the document Ex.R-1 and closed its evidence.

5.                The arguments have been advanced by Mr.Shubnit Hans, learned counsel for the complainant as well as Mr.Rohit Joshi, learned counsel for the opposite party.  With their kind assistance entire record including documentary evidence as well as whatever the evidence had been led during the proceedings of the complaint had also been properly perused and examined.

6.                It is not disputed that the complainant has booked an air ambulance to transfer her son for Rs.6,00,000/- from Chandigarh to  Bangalore as he was suffering from Oesophagus Cancer.  It is also not disputed that due to bad weather condition, the said air ambulance could not fly.  The complainant requested to refund Rs.Six Lacs, but, OP did not pay the deposited amount. It was only after refusal of the OP company, the complainant was constrained to book another air ambulance from some other company to transfer her son by paying an amount of Rs.11,00,000/- due to deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

7.                To prove her case, she produced on record Ex.C-1 invoice of opposite party showing that the complainant  had already paid Rs.6,00,000/- to the opposite party, which could not be rebutted.  Ex.C-2 and C-6 (colly) emails of parties intersee, reveals that the complainant requested for refund of the deposited amount but OP did not pay any heed.   EX.C-5 pendrive of audio recording of the parties reveal that the complainant again and again requested the OP to pay the deposited amount, however, the OP despite having admitted to refund the same did not pay any amount to her.  Resultantly,  it is true that the payment was not made  by the OP despite several requests made through email as well as whatsapp chat.  When the payment has not been made by the OP as such, this Commission is of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in service of opposite party  and thus, complainant is well within her legal rights to get the refund of the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Six Lac Only)   which she had already deposited with the O.P. 

8.                In the light of the above observation and discussion, there are sufficient grounds to accept the complaint and while accepting the complaint,  the O.P. is directed to refund of the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Six Lacs Only)    alongwith interest @ 6%  per annum from  the date of deposit till realization to the complainant.   In case, there will be a breach in making payment within the stipulated period  of  45 days, in that eventuality, the complainant would further be entitled to get the interest @ 9% per annum, for the defaulting period.   The complainant is also entitled of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand Only) for compensation of mental and physical agony.  In addition, the complainant is also entitled of Rs.25,000/-  (Twenty Five Thousand Only) as litigation charges.  It is also made clear that for non-compliance, the provisions enshrined under section 72 of the C.P.Act  would also be attractable. 

9.                Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

10.              A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

11.              File be consigned to record room.

 

December 22nd, 2022      Suresh Chander Kaushik,          S.P.Sood

                                      Member                                    Judicial Member                                 

S.K.(Pvt.Secy)