V e r s u s

3. Directorate General of Civil Aviation, Aurbindo Marg., Opp. Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi-110003 (through Authorized Officer)

…..Respondent/Proforma OP

BEFORE:    JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                   MR.RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

Present:-    Sh. P.R.Singhania, appellant No.2 in person and also on behalf of appellant No.1.

Sh. Dixit Garg, Advocate for respondent No.1 (on VC).

None for respondent No.2 (on VC).

Respondent No.3 exparte vide order dated 28.07.2023.

PER JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                   The complainants have come up with this appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the District Commission), vide order dated 13.03.2023 in consumer complaint bearing no.345 of 2020. Relevant part of the said order is reproduced hereunder:- 

 “…In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. Opposite  party no.1 & 2 are directed as under :-

1.      To refund amount of ₹2945/- to the complainants alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till realization.
2.      to pay an amount of ₹1000/- to the complainants as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to them;
3.      to pay ₹1000/- to the complainants as costs of litigation.

This order be complied with by the Opposite  party no.1 & 2  within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.

Since neither any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice has been alleged nor any relief has been prayed against OP No.3, therefore, the consumer complaint qua it stands dismissed with no order as to costs....…”

2.           Succinctly stated that complainant No.2 booked an air ticket with the opposite  party no.1 from Patna to New Delhi on 01.11.2019 and paid Rs.3144/- to opposite  party no.1 (Annexure C-1). Thereafter, travel plan was changed and therefore, the complainant No.2 forthwith sent an email to opposite  party no.1 for cancellation of the air ticket, which was accordingly cancelled within 40 minutes of booking by opposite  party no.1 (Annexure C-3). Though, the air ticket was cancelled within 40 minutes of booking, even much less than the prescribed period of 24 hours but opposite  party no.1 refunded only Rs.199/- and refused to refund the balance amount of Rs.2945/-. Even after sending emails and legal notice to the opposite  parties no.1 & 2, both of them remained silent and did not redress the genuine grievance of the complainant. Hence, consumer complaint was filed before the District Commission.
3.           Opposite Party no.1 in its reply stated that on receipt of the cancellation request from the complainant, it immediately contacted the opposite party no.2 airline and proceeded with the cancellation of the air ticket of the complainant. It requested the opposite party no.2 to refund the air ticket amount of the complainant. However, the opposite party no.2 informed that the refund shall be as per the airline cancellation policy. Opposite party no.2 has refunded an amount of Rs.199/- to the complainant (Annexure OP/3). It is further submitted that it (opposite party no.1) has no role in the operation of the airlines. It only provides a website to the customer to book tickets in their desired airlines. The airline is solely responsible for the cancellation or refund of tickets in case of cancellation of flights. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.           Despite service, none put in appearance on behalf of opposite parties  no.2 and 3, as a result of which, they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 11.12.2020.
5.           In the rejoinder filed, the complainants reiterated all the averments contained in their  complaint
6.           The contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and numerous documents before the District Commission.
7.           The District Commission after hearing the contesting parties and on going through the material available on record, partly allowed the consumer complaint, as stated above.
8.           This appeal has been filed by the appellants/complainants seeking enhancement of compensation and litigation expenses already awarded by the District Commission.
9.           Despite service none put in appearance on behalf of the respondent no.3, as a result it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 28.07.2023.
10.           During arguments, the appellant no.2/complainant no.1 vehemently contended that though the District Commission has ordered refund of remaining amount of  Rs.2945/- holding the respondents no.1 and 2 deficient in providing service, yet, it fell into a grave error in awarding meager compensation for mental agony and harassment which the appellants have suffered and also litigation expenses were also too meager.     
11.           On the other hand, counsel for respondent no.1 submitted that the order passed by the District Commission needs to be set aside and the complaint should be dismissed with cost. 
12.           The short question which needs to be decided in this appeal is, as  to whether, the compensation and litigation expenses already awarded by the District Commission needs to be enhanced or not? It may be stated here that it is clearly coming out from the document Annexure C-1, that on 29.09.2019 the complainant paid an amount of Rs.3144/- for the tickets in question. Admittedly, the flight ticket in question was cancelled by the complainants within 40 minutes of the booking i.e. within the lock-in-option of 24 hours, which entitled them to get refund of the entire amount paid by them for the said tickets, in view of clause no.3 (e) contained in DGCA Rules, Annexure C-4 but respondents no.1 and 2 failed to do so. Under these circumstances, the District Commission was right in holding that since opposite parties no.1 and 2 have failed to prove as to why, the amount of Rs.2945/- stood deducted from the total amount of Rs.3,144/-, as such, they are deficient in providing service and as such, order of refund of Rs.2945/- was passed by it. However, to the mind of this Commission, the compensation awarded for deficiency in providing service on the part of opposite parties no.1 and 2 appears to be on the lower side. It is significant to mention here that by not refunding the entire amount of tickets, the complainants were caused a lot of mental agony, harassment and financial loss at the hands of opposite parties no.1 and 2. Compensation awarded should not be based on any mathematical formula as to what is quantum of amount  ordered to be refunded to the successful litigant, but the compensation has to be commensurate to the nature of suffering and pain, its extent, length, and duration. In the present case, the booking of tickets was done by the complainants on 29.09.2019, on which date only after 40 minutes the same were cancelled. However, they waited for long time till 04.09.2020 but opposite parties no.1 and 2 did not refund the remaining amount of Rs.2945/-, as a result of which, they were compelled to enter into this litigation starting from 04.09.2020 till 13.03.2023 i.e. for a long period of about 2 ½ years for recovering their petty amount of Rs.2945/-. Thus, under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that we should not see the quantum of amount to be refunded to the consumer but on the other should also keep in mind the nature of suffering and pain, its extent, length, and duration for award of compensation. Thus, if we enhance compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- from Rs.1000/- awarded by the District Commission that will be fair, adequate and will meet the ends of justice.
13.           Similarly, the litigation expenses awarded to the tune of Rs.1000/- by the District Commission is on the lower side.  In Salem Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India [2005 (6) SCC 344], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that  “costs have to be actual reasonable costs including the cost of time spent by the successful party, the transportation and lodging, if any, and any other incidental costs besides the payment of the court fee, lawyer’s fee, typing and other costs in relation to the litigation.”.

                   Perusal of record of the District Commission reveals that complainant no.2 has appeared before it in the main  consumer complaint on seven occasions and as such he might have incurred travel expenses for the same for coming all the way from his residence i.e. from Sector 51-D, Chandigarh. Similarly, he would have definitely spent money on drafting his complaint i.e. typing fees, xerox of complaint sets etc. etc.  Thus, under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that if we enhance litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.25,000/- from Rs.1000/- awarded by the District Commission, that will be fair, adequate and will meet the ends of justice.

14.           For the reasons recorded above, this appeal stands allowed. The order impugned dated 13.03.2023 passed by the District Commission in consumer complaint bearing no.345 of 2020 is modified. The respondents/opposite parties no.1 and 2 (EBIX Travels Pvt. Ltd. and Interglobe Aviation Ltd.) jointly and severally, are directed as under:-
    1. To pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the appellants/complainants as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to them and also deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice.
    2. To pay Rs.25,000/- to the appellants/complainants as costs of litigation.
    3. This order be complied with by the respondents no.1 and 2/opposite parties no.1 and 2  within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy thereof, failing which, thereafter they shall make the payment of awarded amounts mentioned above alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of consumer complaint before the District Commission, till realization.
15.           Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge, forthwith.
16.           The concerned file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

06.11.2023

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Rg