DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.1300/2007
Indian Dairy Association (IDA)
Through secretary
IDA House, Sec-IV, R K Puram
New Delhi-110022 ……Complainant
Versus
1. M/s D. Paul Travels & Tour
2/131-162 (FF) Malviya Nagar
New Delhi-110017
2. M/s China Eastern Airlines,
Through Liaison Officer,
China Eastern Airlines,
Delhi Office, 66, Janpath,
New Delhi-110001 ……Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 14.12.07 Date of Order : 30.12.15
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Brief facts of the case as made out in amended complaint are that the Complainant had requested OP No.1 for booking of two tickets in the name of Mr. Animesh Banerjee, President and Dr. N. R. Bhasin, Vice President of Complainant for their visit to china as follows:-
Date from to Mode of travel
18 Oct. 06 Delhi Shanghai Air
24 Oct 06 Shanghai Beijing By surface
29 Oct 2006 Beijing Delhi Air
Complainant has stated that the China trip of the President and Vice President was academic and the same was completely sponsored by the Complainant. It was clarified to the OP No.1 that travel from Shanghai to Beijing on 24.10.2006 would be made by the Chinese authority and the OP No.1 should book air travel Delhi- Shanghai on 18 Oct 2006 and Beijing on 29 Oct 2006. OP No.1 was also requested to make provision for both the officials to sit in the front seat because they are senior citizens. There was no difficulty in the air journey from Delhi to Shanghai. However, for the return journey, Beijing to Delhi, the tickets were booked on a hopping flight from Beijing to Delhi with a stop at Shanghai i.e. “the flight was direct with from Beijing to Delhi but had a technical halt at Shanghai.” Since the flight number was the same, it was clear that there would be no need to change the flight. The problem was not with the flight but the fact that for the journey from Beijing to Shanghai, the tickets were booked in flight number 563 class “K” but for journey from Shanghai to Delhi, the tickets were booked in same flight number 563 but class “M” in China Eastern Airline. Complainant has further stated that the request was for booking ticket in economy class and the itinerary also shows that the class of service to be Economy (K) and economy (M) respectively. However, it was never mentioned or even suggested to them that these different sub-classes of economy would require the passengers to de-plane the aircraft, collect their baggage and the re-check in and re-board again. There was no reason for them even to suspect any deficiency or discrepancy upon the receipt of tickets. The representative of OP No.1 delivered the tickets for the travel on 06 Oct 06 and the payment of Rs.69,000/- was made in their favour. Having taken the flight MU563 from Beijing at its schedule time at 1900 hrs. and landed Shanghai at 2115 hrs, as per their itinerary and tickets in Economy (K) class. The representatives of the Complainant were told that since they were in a different class namely Economy, they would be required to de-plane the aircraft, collect their baggage and then re-check in and re-board again. Since the same flight was scheduled to take off for Delhi at 2210 hrs. and very little time was left, all efforts were made but the same went in vain. The representatives of the Complainant association had no choice but to de-plane the aircraft, collect their baggage and re-board again. The President and Vice President of the Association, both senior citizens were forced to rush the whole process. After completing the necessary drill, they collected their baggage and reached the requisite terminal of OP No.2 by 2140 hrs. to re-check in as required. They were, however, told that the flight from Shanghai to Delhi was over booked and the booking had closed at 2125 hrs. This would not have happened if the OP would have booked the tickets in the same class either “M” or “K” of economy class. The booking was made in a casual manner without bothering that it would not be possible for any passenger to de-plane the aircraft, collect their baggage and re-check in and re-board again in the short interval between the arrival and departure at Shanghai. The
representatives of Complainant had to over stay for two days at Shanghai as the next flight of OP No.2 was available only on 31 Oct 06 and they incurred heavy expenditure on boarding, lodging and transportation as they reached Delhi on 1st Nov. 06 instead of reaching on 30 Oct. 06 and the meetings fixed at Delhi for 30 Oct. & 31 Oct. 06 had to be cancelled putting many persons into inconvenience and financial loss and reputation of the Complainant. They sent a letter dated November 1, 06 to the OP No.1 regarding their irresponsible conduct. They also sent legal notice dated 13th Dec 06. Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 the Complainant has prayed as under:
- Direct the OPs to pay Rs.2,17,750/- i.e. Rs.12,570/- towards boarding/lodging and transportation, Rs.1 lakh as compensation on account of harassment and loss of business, Rs.5,000/- towards cost of legal notice with interest @ 18% p.a. severally and jointly and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.
OP No.1 in the written statement has stated that the Complainant after receiving the reply from them filed a application seeking amendment of the complaint by way of withdrawing the earlier complaint and it had filed a amended complaint after one year of filing the earlier complaint. Both the representatives of the Complainant are educated and are capable of understanding the contents of the ticket and it is not the case that they had not travelled by the air for the first time. As both the representatives of the Complainant institute were not infact on business tour but the said visit to abroad by these officials was infact for commercial purpose and not personal visit and the Complainant institute is not a consumer under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Complainant also suppressed the material fact as one Ms. Neelam Garg employee of the Complainant interacted with the OP No.1 for booking of two air tickets. That time she had not raised any objection at all to the routing of the return journey via Shanghai and the details were emailed on 13.09.06 more than one month prior to the date of the journey. After having accepted the terms of the ticket it is too late now at this stage to say that they were not aware with the route of the return flight. OP No.1 has further stated that the two officials infact extended their holidays in Shanghai as they had booked their baggage at Beijing only up to Shanghai and not upto Delhi and then they went out of the airport. Otherwise they need not to go in the process of re-check in at the airport but as they stayed there according to their own wish and later on have shifted the liability on the shoulder of OP No.1. OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with an exemplary cost.
OP No.2 in the written statement has stated that after enquiries from OP No.1 and TSI Travel Services Ltd. it is revealed that the passengers i.e. the President and Vice President of Complainant association were informed well in advance that the return flight was not a direct flight from Beijing to Delhi but was routed through Shanghai with a stopover at the Shanghai Airport. The passengers appeared to have checked in their luggage only till Shanghai and not directly till Delhi despite the advice rendered by the said travel agents. In case of connecting flight, there is no requirement to check in again at the transit airport i.e. Shanghai Airport. It is apparent that the passengers went out of the Shanghai Airport for reasons best known to them and further stayed in Shanghai out of their own will and volition. The passengers were even advised by the representatives of the OP No.2 not to leave the Airport since they would not have enough time to go out and recheck in within the given transit time. OP No.2 is merely a carrier and as such no liability can be foisted on it for alleged wrong booking/information made/furnished by the travel agent. There is no difference between the Economy Classes “K” and “M” in the domestic flight of it. OP No.2 has further stated that de-boarding of the passengers took place only because they had to be transferred to the international airbus at Shanghai. Further in the case of all connecting flights including the flight No.(MU) 563, the passenger has to only de-board from the domestic airbus and re-board the international airbus and there is no requirement for the passenger to collect his baggage, re-book it and then re-check-in at the terminal. In the case of connecting flights, the baggage, if booked up to the final destination, is shifted by the Airline and the passenger has no role in it whatsoever. OP No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has not filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP No.1. However, has filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP No.2.
Affidavits of Sh. Animesh Banerjee, President and Sh. N. R. Bhasin, Vice President have been filed in evidence on behalf of the Complainant. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Raghuvinder Pal Singh, Director and affidavit of Sh. Edward Zhu Xuemin, India Representative have been filed in evidence on behalf of OP No.1 & 2 respectively.
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.
It is not in dispute that the Complainant had booked the two tickets through OP No.1 from Delhi to Beijing and Beijing to Delhi via Shanghai. It transpires from the documents submitted by the parties that the Complainant’s representatives while coming from Beijing to Delhi via Shanghai had booked their luggage upto Shanghai. The fight No. MU563 from Beijing to Shanghai was domestic flight and from Shanghai to Delhi was international flight No.MU563. When the representatives reached the Shanghai airport from Beijing via flight No. MU563. The OP No.1 in its evidence has stated that the Complainant’s representative booked their baggage at Beijing only upto Shanghai and not upto Delhi in and they went out the airport, otherwise they need not go in the process of the recheck at the airport. They stayed in Shanghai according to their own wish. If it is so, they cannot put any blame on OP-1 or OP-2. The Complainant has not filed any documentary proof that they had registered any protest with the OP No.2 that the flight is over booked. It appears from the tickets submitted by the Complainant (copy annexure I-4) that all the tickets were confirmed by the OP No.1. There is no dispute about the proposition of law laid down in Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Vs Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 1879/2003 decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 9.2.1009. However, in the present case the prayer of the complainant is also for grant of compensation for loss of business. It means that the two officers of the complainant had gone on the trip in question for business/commercial purposes. The Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OPs and unfair trade practice. Therefore, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
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 30.12.15.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
