Pronounced on 11th August, 2011 O R D E R PER MRS.VINEETA RAI, MEMBER Dr.P.R.Aryan and others (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Petitioners’) have filed the present revision petition against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’) in Appeal No.2177 of 2001 in favour of British Airways and World View Travels & Tours, hereinafter referred to as ‘Respondent Nos.1 and 2’, respectively. Petitioners in their complaint before the District Forum have stated that they had purchased four open tickets from Respondent No.1 through its agent Respondent No.2 for the sector Delhi-London-New York and New York-London-Delhi for Rs.43,552/- per ticket. Petitioners reached New York on 02.11.1999 after a stay of one day in London. On 10.11.1999 they decided to return to India and therefore, requested Respondent No.1 for confirmation of their seats for 20.11.1999 or any other day around that date. Respondent No.1, however, informed them that while seats could be provided for the New York-London sector, no seats were available from London to New Delhi before 15.01.2000. Although, Petitioners again requested for an earlier date since they did not have the means to stay in New York for such a long period and they also did not have a visa for London, Respondent No.1 again informed that this was not possible. Petitioners, thereafter, contacted Respondent No.2 who advised them to reach Delhi by any other available flight and that they could claim the refund for the unutilized coupons. On receipt of this advice, Petitioners purchased fresh tickets on Gulf Airways and returned to Delhi on 20.11.1999. Petitioners thereafter submitted the unutilized coupons for their return journey to Respondent No.1 through Respondent No.2 requesting for refund who, however, declined to pay the same. Being aggrieved, Petitioners filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and requested that the Respondents be directed to make refund all the unutilized four tickets and Rs.10,000/- for harassment and mental agony along with costs. Respondent No.1 on the other hand has stated that the tickets purchased by the Petitioners were excursion air-tickets on which a heavy discount was available and in fact the single fare was far more than what has been paid by the Petitioners for the return journey and therefore, nothing was now payable to the Petitioners. Further, it was stated that these tickets were valid only for British Airways flight and were not re-routable and refundable and also valid for a specified period (in this case for 4 months). Respondent No.2 confirmed that Respondent No.1 had informed that it was not permissible to get any refunds under the special promotional fares and that refund would have been possible only if the Petitioners had flown British Airways. The District Forum after hearing both parties and considering the evidence on record found that both parties were responsible in varying degrees for deficiency in service. However, since the refund had to be made by Respondent No.1 only, it directed Respondent No.1 to refund the amount of the unutilized tickets with interest @ 12% from the date of complaint till realization and costs of Rs.5,000/- to each Petitioner within 45 days. Aggrieved by this order, Respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the State Commission which while setting aside the interest part of the order of the District Forum, upheld the rest of its order. The operative part of the order of the State Commission reads as follows: “No doubt, the seats are provided if these are available but it does not mean that the Airlines gets absolved from not refunding the unutilized ticket as the airline does not suffer any pecuniary loss. Merely because these were excursion fare tickets and discount was paid on the tickets, does not mean that at the time of refund of unutilized coupons, fresh exercise is to be undertaken by calculating the actual price of the ticket and coming to the conclusion that the figure of refund was negative. If it was so, what was the purpose of issuing coupons. Unutilized coupons have to be provided the value at discounted price and the said price is refundable if these are not utilized. Discount cannot and does not mean that unutilized coupons are not refundable. Further more, the appellant could not convince the District Forum that no seats were available on 29.11.99 nor was any record was produced to show that no seat was available on 20.11.99 or on 15.01.2000. In the given facts and circumstances of the case we partly allow the appeal by maintaining the direction to refund the amount of unutilized tickets as ordered by the District Forum, but setting aside the interest awarded by the District Forum which in our view was not awardable in the given facts and circumstances of the case and maintain the cost of Rs.5,000/- to each complainant which shall be treated as a compensation and cost.” Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission which did not allow interest on the awarded amount, Petitioner No1. has come in revision on this issue. Notices were issued to the parties on 27.05.2011. Only Counsel for Petitioner was present. Since, 30 days period is already over from the date of issue of notices, Respondents are deemed to have been served. Hence, the case is proceeded ex parte. Learned Counsel for Petitioner stated that the State Commission erred in setting aside the interest part of the order of the District Forum without recording any specific reasons. According to the Counsel for Petitioner, the interest was awarded to the Petitioners as a compensation for the serious deficiency in service by Respondent No.1, British Airways. Further, the amount of the unutilized tickets had been lying with the Respondent since 1999 and was refunded to them only in 2007. Therefore, Respondent had also benefited by keeping the principal amount for about 8 years and in fact the amount returned to the Petitioner after such a long time without even ordinary interest is actually a loss for them. Counsel for Petitioner further stated that there was also some ambiguity in the wording of the order of the Fora below wherein an interpretation could be made that only half of the amount of unutilized coupons would ultimately be paid to the Petitioners. It was, therefore, requested that this may be clarified and the revision petition may be accepted and interest awarded by the District Forum in favour of the Petitioners may be restored. We have heard learned Counsel for Petitioner and have carefully gone through the evidence on record. We agree with the Fora below that by neither accommodating the Petitioners on their request for seats during a reasonable period nor returning them the refund on the unutilized tickets as assured by their agent, Respondent, British Airways is responsible for deficiency in service. We would, however, like to state that we see no ambiguity in the order of the District Forum which has been confirmed by the State Commission that Respondent No.1 has to pay the entire amount of the unutilized tickets of the Petitioners and the same thus stands clarified. We further note that following the order of the State Commission, this amount has actually been paid to the Petitioner and, therefore, the matter does not need further clarification. Regarding the contention of the Petitioners that in order to compensate for deficiency in service, the State Commission should have upheld the order of the District Forum pertaining to the interest portion also and specially since the amount due was paid to them after seven long years, we are not convinced with this submission in view of the fact that apart from refunding the entire amount of the unutilized coupons, the Petitioners have also been paid Rs.5,000/- each for deficiency in service. The delay in making the payment is fully explained by the fact that the parties were in litigation before the Fora below, and therefore, the payment was made after the order of the State Commission in 2007. We see no reasons to disagree with the order of the State Commission keeping in view the above facts and circumstances taken in their totality. To sum up, the order of the State Commission is upheld and the revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- …………..………………… (ASHOK BHAN J.) PRESIDENT Sd/- ………….………………. (VINEETA RAI) MEMBER /sks/ |
