DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.437/2009
Sh. Vijay Kumar Abrol
Senior Manager Punjab National Bank
R/o Gulrukh Near DAV Public School
Nangal Road Una (HP) ….Complainant
Versus
1. The Executive Directors
M/s Balmere Lawrie Ltd.
E-15 Hauz Khas Main Market
New Delhi-110016
2. M/s Soumya Dewadi
M/s Balmere Lawrie Ltd.
E-15, Hauz Khas Main Market
New Delhi-110016
3. Managing Director
M/s Balmere Lawrie Ltd.
21, Neta Subhash Road
Kolkata (West Bengal) ……Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 29.05.09 Date of Order : 13.05.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Sh. S.S. Fonia, Member
O R D E R
N.K. GOEL ( PRESIDENT)
Briefly stated that the case of the Complainant is that he had booked a package tour to Delhi – Kualampur -Singapore-Chennai-Port-Blair -Chennai-Delhi from 19.10.08 to 26.10.08 for himself and his family consisting his wife, son and daughter with special Inst IC853 W19 October 7 DELKUL HK4 0050 1025 19TH Oct EIC/RC2FQQ 6ARNK 7IC 556 W 24OCT EIC/RC2FQQ 81C 549 W 25 OCT 6 MAAIXZ HK4 0550 0755 25 OCT EIC/RC2FQQ9IC550W 260OCT 7IXZMAA HK4 0845 1050 26 OCT EIC/RC2FQQ 10 Insurance Company 539 W 26 OCT 7 MAADEL HK4 1810 2040 26 OCT EIC/RC2FQQ and he had paid Rs.2,74,040/- on 03.09.08 from his current account to the OPs. On 18.10.08 when he collected the passport, package confirmation voucher and electronic tickets/passenger itinerary receipts, the OPs demanded Rs.1000/- regarding visa charges of his wife for Singapore which was rejected at the first instance and the same was applied again but the OPs had not supplied any proof for rejection of visa in first time or reapplying. On 18.10.2008 when he alongwith his family reached the Delhi airport at the counter of booking they found that their tickets were not confirmed and no record was available regarding four tickets. He contacted the OPs on telephone and after a lot of persuasion the OP No.3 talked to the concerned officer at airport and they issued the boarding passes. He again talked to the OP No.3 to ensure that they will not face any such problem during their tour. The OP No.3 assured them that no such problem will occur. They again faced the same problem on 24.10.2008 when they reached the Singapore airport for their journey to Chennai and he was told by the counter officer that their tickets were not confirmed/booked in the flight No.IC-556. It was great humiliation when they were asked to stand aside and to allow other passengers to check-in. As the OPs did not reply, he contacted the airport manager and told him the problem. He checked the booking and informed him that there is no booking of any ticket of the Complainant and he made an written endorsement “no confirmed/wait listed booking on IC 556 - 24.10.08”. The airport manager tried his best but inspite of his best efforts he could not help them. He spoke to the OP No.3 and she asked him to go back to the same hotel at Singapore and in the meantime she would make the necessary arrangement for their booking for the remaining tour. They took the taxi and reached the hotel. When they reached the hotel they faced the same problem as there was no booking and they shifted to another hotel. He spoke to the OP No.3 and she stated that she was making the arrangement and told them to go back to the same hotel. Again there was no instruction from the OPs. He spoke to OP No.3 at Delhi and she told them to check-in at the same hotel at their own expenses. They stayed in the hotel as asked by the OP No.3 at their own expenses but she did not inform about the further arrangement of the tour. He again called OP No.3 and she told them that their tickets have been booked by the PNR No.RAFRH2. He requested the OP No.3 to send the revised booking status through fax at the said hotel but the OP No.3 failed to do so. He contacted one of his relatives at Delhi who had some relation in Singapore and through them after checking the PNR Number received the fax of the reservation status and came to know that the earlier tickets which were delivered to the Complainant under PNR No. RC2FQQ were not confirmed tickets because no booking was made on those tickets as per the revised reservation status. They hired a taxi and went to the airport to take the flight. They reached Chennai and then to Port Blair. Due to unwarranted delay and change of schedule they neither got proper time to sleep at Chennai nor could visit any place at Chennai which was part of their tour programme. He had spent money in making the telephone calls, hiring taxi, stay in Singapore due to non-booking /negligence on the part of OPs. He sent legal notices to the OPs on 19.12.08 and 02.05.09 but all in vain. Hence, there is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Complainant has prayed as under:-
- Direct the OPs to pay make the payment of an amount of Rs.6,20,040/- (2,70,040 + 50,000 + 3,00,000) towards pain, agony and suffering together with interest @ 24% per annum from 19.12.08 till realization and to award costs of proceeding.
OPs in the written statement have stated that the complaint is not maintainable as the Complainant has not impleaded the Air India, the Carrier and service provider as a party as Air India Ltd. is a necessary party in the present case. In the absence of Air India Ltd. effective adjudication of the complaint is not possible. The tickets issued to the Complainant were subject to the following conditions mentioned therein which were typed/printed in capital letters as:-
“NOTICE
- CARRIAGE AND OTHER SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE CARRIER ARE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF CARRIAGE WHICH ARE HEREBY INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE THESE CONDITIONS MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE ISSUING CARRIER.
- THE ITINERARY/RECEIPT CONSTITUTES THE ‘PASSENGER TICKET’ FOR THE PURPOSE OF WARSA CONVENTION, EXCEPT WHERE THE CARRIER DELIVERS TO THE PASSENGER ANOTHER DOCUMENT COMPLYING WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF ARTICLE 3.
NOTICE
- IF THE PASSENGER’S JOURNEY INVOLVES AN ULTIMATE DESTINATION OR STOP IN A COUNTRY OTHER THAN THE COUNTRY OF DEPARTURE THE WARSA CONVENTION MAY BE APPLICABLE AND THE CONVENTION GOVERNS AND IN MOST CASES LIMITS THE LIABILITY OF THE CARRIER FOR THE DEATH OR PERSONAL INJURY AND IN RESPECT OF LOSS OR DAMAGE TO THE BAGGAGE. SEE ALSO NOTICES HEADED ADVICE TO INTERNATIONAL PASSENGERS ON LIMITATION OF LIABILITY AND NOTICE OF BAGGAGE LIABILITY LIMITATIONS”
The tickets issued to the Complainant were also subject to other conditions and the same are as under:-
TRANSITING PASSENGERS
- Transiting passengers due to non-availability of onward connecting flight the same day will have to make their own arrangements for overnight accommodation and/or airport transfer while transiting.
- In case of cancellations of flights or delays of more than three hours, passengers who are not provided hotel accommodation may get a reimbursement of conveyance charges not exceeding Rs.1,000/- (both ways).
LAYOVER GUIDELINES-OVERSEAS PASSENGERS
Hotel accommodation will be provided to passengers traveling on our international routes in case of disruption/cancellation of flights subject to availability of rooms/accommodation.”
OPs have further stated that in view of the above, the Complainant was required to implead the carrier, Air India Ltd. and claim damages/ loss from the said carrier keeping in view the above mentioned and other applicable conditions. OPs have further stated that the visa of Ms. Rita Abrol was initially rejected on the ground that the address given in the passport does not tally with the visa form. They incurred an expenditure of Rs.970/- for applying for a fresh visa and additional Rs.125/- was paid for Matt Finished Photographs against the total expenses of Rs.1059/- wherein the Complainant paid only Rs.1000/- in cash and did not demand receipt for the payment evidently because he had not paid the full amount. It is admitted that initially theirs names were not being reflected on the system which might have been due to server down but soon thereafter the airport staff (Air India) were able to see the ticket images, the Complainants were allowed to board the flight and there was no difficulty. It is admitted that the Complainant could not catch the booked flight at Singapore Chang Airport on 24.10.08 and faced certain amount of uncertainty and inconvenience but the same is sincerely regretted. On receipt of a call from the Complainant that he was not being allowed to board the booked flight the OPs took action immediately and contacted Indian Airlines (now Air India) at Singapore and advised them to retrieve the PNR. It is stated as under:
“4&5. Though the PNR was not showing in their system, they could see the ticket image and allowed on that basis to the Complainant to travel to Chennai. As this took some time, the flight in the meantime departed for Chennai. The Opposite Party could not arrange for the hotel accommodation for the complainant as it was a holiday. However, the Opposite Party made another PNR RAFRH2 and revalidated the tickets of the Complainant and his family. Since the Complainant was travelling on Air India package, their ground handling staff could not be contacted by the Complainant at Singapore. However, operation staff of the Opposite party at New Delhi offered monetary compensation to the Complainant for whatever expenses were incurred by him on taxi, telephones and hotel, but the Complainant refused to accept the same.” (italics ours)
The OPs did all the possible to assist the Complainant on 24.10.08 but there was regrettable inconvenience to the Complainant and his family. They had already stated that it was due to system fault, hence, there was no negligence on the part of OPs. The Complainant may lodge his reasonable and correct claim for reimbursement against the carrier, Air India Ltd. which is a necessary party. The staff of the OP offered the Complainant compensation on his return to Delhi and assisted the Complainant to the maximum extent possible. They are willing to reimburse towards telephone, taxi and hotel charges incurred by him even now. OPs have further stated that they had not committed illegality, unwarranted and unjustified acts by booking the package tour of the Complainant with Air India Ltd. This is a normal work of any travel agent which is perfectly legal. OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of OPs and stated that he had paid full amount to the OPs in respect of entire package including airfare, boarding, lodging, sightseeing etc. It is the sole responsibility of OPs to provide and to take proper steps for successful completion of the tour. They are not aware about any lapse on the part of Air India or any other Airline. The OPs offered a meager amount of compensation which is not adequate for harassment, humiliation, mental agony and huge financial loss caused to the complainant. Hence, the Air India Ltd. being an airline has nothing to do with this case and it is the whole sole duty of the OPs to have taken full care for the successful completion of the package tour of the Complainant for which they had collected the amount of package from him.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence while affidavit of Sh. Anuj Mukhopadhyay, Manager (Tours) has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OPs.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties. We have heard the arguments on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the file very carefully.
Admittedly, the Complainant booked a package tour to Delhi – Kualampur -Singapore-Chennai-Port-Blair -Chennai-Delhi for himself and his family members from OPs which was to be scheduled from 19.1008 to 27.10.08 and he had paid Rs.274040/-. When they reached Delhi airport for boarding to Singapore, the tickets were not shown in the computer as confirmed. The OPs spoke to the Airline and the Airline issued the boarding cards. When the Complainant alongwith his family reached the airport at Singapore for Chennai their tickets were not confirmed and they could not board the aircraft. He alongwith his family stayed in a hotel and the OP did not provide the accommodation to them because “it was a holiday”. We are amused to see the pleading of the OP. “Your clients (complainants) are in distress and at the mercy of others in a foreign country without their fault and you are celebrating a holiday in India. Rather celebrating holidays at your home you should depute some staff to redress the grievances of your clients. You are running a travel agency. You should be very very careful while dealing with the grievance of your clients who are innocent travellers and who have spent money and put their faith in you in order to enjoy their trip. Therefore, you should not “trap” them in the name of providing a trip.” OPs have infact exhibited the gravest kind of negligence on their part. The OPs in their written statement have admitted the negligence (to some extent) but according to them, the same was sincerely regretted to the Complainant. The OPs offered the compensation in respect of expenses incurred by the Complainant on taxi, telephone calls and hotel charges but the Complainant refused to accept the same. The OPs have stated that if the Complainant is wiling to accept the compensation they are ready to reimburse the telephone, taxi and hotel charges incurred by him even now. Complainants have not asked for alms. They have been fighting for justice.
On the one hand, OPs say that Air India is a necessary party to be impleaded in the present case for the effective decision of the case. On the other hand, OPs are willing and ready to compensate the complainant and to reimburse the telephone, taxi and hotel charges incurred by him at Singapore. OPs have, thus, adopted self-contradictory pleas. Even otherwise, the complainant had entered into a contract with the OPs and not with the Air India. Therefore, we hold that Air India is not a necessary party to be impleaded in the present complaint and the matter can effectively be adjudicated and decided upon between the complainant and OPs.
Therefore, we hold the OPs guilty of gross negligency and deficiency in service.
Therefore, we allow the complaint and direct the OP No. 1 & 3 to pay Rs. 3 Lacs (Rupees Three Lacs only) in lumpsum to the Complainant towards the expenses incurred by the complainant in Singapore, mental pain and agony and cost of litigation.
The order shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order failing which OP No. 1 & 3 shall become liable to pay interest @ Rs. 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 13.05.16.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (S.S.FONIA) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Case No. 437/09
13.5.2016
Present – None
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is allowed. OP No. 1 & 3 are directed to pay Rs. 3 Lacs (Rupees Three Lacs only) in lumpsum to the Complainant towards the expenses incurred by the complainant in Singapore, mental pain and agony and cost of litigation. The order shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order failing which OP No. 1 & 3 shall become liable to pay interest @ Rs. 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (S.S.FONIA) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
