Haryana

Kaithal

CC/6/2022

Sanjana Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Go Airlines Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Rachit Gupta

23 Nov 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                               Complaint Case No. 06 of 2022.

                                                               Date of institution:   14.01.2022.

                                                               Date of decision:      23.11.2023.

 

Sanjana Gupta d/o Shri Sanjeev Kumar Gupta, r/o House No.208/10, GTB Colony, Kaithal.

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                                   Versus

 

1. Go Airlines Ltd. through its Partner/Director/Authorized Agent, C/o C-1, Wadia International Centre, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400025.
2. Make My Trip India Pvt. Ltd., through its Partner/Director/Authorized Agent, C/o DLF Building No. 5 Tower B DLF, Cyber City, DLF Phase 2, Sector-25, Gurugram, Haryana.

...Opposite Parties

 

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

 

CORAM:   SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                   SHRI SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

 

                  

Present:       Shri Rachit Gupta, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                   Shri Rajesh Kumar, Adv. for Opposite Party No.1.

                   Shri C.L. Uppal, Adv. for Opposite Party No.2.

                  

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.

2.                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant booked the flight of OP No.1, through OP No.2 through internet. On the same day i.e. 28.11.2021, she received an email communication from OP No.1 airlines that the flight No.G8 513 with PNR No.T2LYQB which was scheduled to depart from Hyderabad to Chandigarh on 31.12.2021 and she had paid Rs.4978/- for the above said flight. On 29.11.2021, OP No.1 airlines sent Tax Invoice No.3648618869T2LYQB dated 28.11.2021 for the above said flight book by the complainant vide email. On 14.12.2021, she received an e-mail communication from OP No.1 airlines that the above said flight No.G8-513 with PNR No.T2LYQB has been cancelled without assigning any reason and the amount of Rs.4978/- has been refunded to her on her online request. She was forced to book another Flight No.6E 108 with PNR No.JTRFMB of Indigo Airlines through OP No.2 and made to exorbitant amount of Rs.10,012/- for the said flight. She requested the OPs to refund the difference of fare given by her for booking another flight with Rs.1 lac as compensation, but they failed to pay the same. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for acceptance of complaint.    

3.             Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Commission and filed their respective written statements.

4.                OP No.1, in its written statement admitted about booking one Go Airline Ticket on 28.11.2021 to travel from Hyderabad to Chandigarh on 31.12.2021 by the complainant. It is further submitted that before the scheduled date of flight, the said fight was cancelled and the same was duly communicated to the complainant and the reason for cancellation of the flight was technical reason (Winter Schedule). Intimation in this regard be given to the complainant on 14.12.2021 through email/SMS. The amount of ticket paid by the complainant was refunded in full i.e. sum of INR4978/- after due process of company on 24.12.2021. The Civil Aviation Requirements, Services “M” Part IV issued by Office of the Director General of Civil Aviation dated 06.08.2010 and effective from 15.08.2010 (hereinafter referred to as CAR requirements), specifically provides for facilities to be provided to passengers by airlines due to denied boarding, cancellation of flights and delay in flights. Clause 1.4 of the said CAR requirements provides for exemption to airlines for payment of any compensation in case of cancellation of flights caused by any event of force majeure beyond the control of the Airline. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.

5.                OP No.2, in its written statement stated that OP No.2 merely acts as a facilitator for booking the confirmed air tickets/hotel bookings on behalf of its customers with the concerned service providers. OP No. 2, upon the request received from its customer, forwards the same to the concerned Airlines service providers through software’s embedded on its web portal. Upon received the confirmation from concerned service providers, the booking ID is generated and confirmed bookings/tickets is shared with the customer. OP No.2 is not responsible or liable for any deficiency caused on the part of the concerned airlines. It is further stated that for availing the services of the answering opposite party, the intended traveler has to enter into an E-contract with the answering OP by consenting to the terms and conditions of the answering OP, by clicking on the “I Agree” pot up or button. He further stated that customers are bound by the terms and condition of the User Agreement of the answering OP No. 2 “Annexure R1”.

6.                To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C9.

7.                OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A & documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-3. OP No.2 in its evidence tendered affidavits Ex.RW2/A, Ex.RW2/B along with documents Annexure R-4 to Annexure R-9.

8.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully as well as written arguments submitted by learned counsel for the complainant.

9.                Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is currently employed as Research Analyst in Indian School of Business, Hyderabad. On 28.11.2021, complainant booked the flight of OP No.1, through OP No.2, through internet and on the same day, she received an email communication from OP No.1 airlines that the flight No.G8 513 with PNR No.T2LYQB which was scheduled to depart from Hyderabad to Chandigarh on 31.12.2021 and she had paid Rs.4978/- for the above said flight. He further argued that on 29.11.2021, OP No.1 airlines sent Tax Invoice No.3648618869T2LYQB dated 28.11.2021 for the above said flight book by the complainant vide email. On 14.12.2021, the complainant received an e-mail communication from OP No.1 airlines that the above said flight No.G8-513 with PNR No.T2LYQB has been cancelled, without assigning any reason and the amount of Rs.4978/- has been refunded to her on her online request. He further argued that the complainant was forced to book another Flight No.6E 108 with PNR No.JTRFMB of Indigo Airlines through OP No.2 and made to exorbitant amount of Rs.10,012/- for the said flight. The complainant requested the OPs to refund the difference of fare given by her for booking another flight with Rs.1 lac as compensation, but they failed to pay the same. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs. In order to support her contentions, complainant placed reliance upon case law titled Air India Express Vs. Sumant Bhardwaj & Ors., 2013 (4) C.P.J. 508 (NC) and Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. Versus Jagroop Kaur and others, 2012 (1) C.P.J. 128 (Chandigarh State Commission).

10.              On the other hand, ld. counsel for OP No.1 argued that the complainant booked one Go Airline Ticket on 28.11.2021 to travel from Hyderabad to Chandigarh on 31.12.2021. He further argued that before the scheduled date of flight, the said fight was cancelled and the same was duly communicated to the complainant and the reason for cancellation of the flight was technical reason (Winter Schedule). Intimation in this regard be given to the complainant on 14.12.2021 through email/SMS and the amount of ticket paid by the complainant was refunded in full i.e. sum of INR4978/- after due process of company on 24.12.2021. The Civil Aviation Requirements, Services “M” Part IV issued by Office of the Director General of Civil Aviation dated 06.08.2010 and effective from 15.08.2010 (hereinafter referred to as CAR requirements), specifically provides for facilities to be provided to passengers by airlines due to denied boarding, cancellation of flights and delay in flights. Clause 1.4 of the said CAR requirements provides for exemption to airlines for payment of any compensation in case of cancellation of flights caused by any event of force majeure beyond the control of the Airline. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.

11.              Learned counsel for OP No.2 has argued that OP No.2 merely acts as a facilitator for booking the confirmed air tickets/hotel bookings on behalf of its customers with the concerned service providers. OP No.2, upon the request received from its customer, forwards the same to the concerned Airlines service providers through software’s embedded on its web portal. Upon received the confirmation from concerned service providers, the booking ID is generated and confirmed bookings/tickets is shared with the customer. He further argued that OP No.2 is not responsible or liable for any deficiency caused on the part of the concerned airlines. He further argued that for availing the services of the answering opposite party, the intended traveler has to enter into an E-contract with the answering OP by consenting to the terms and conditions of the answering OP, by clicking on the “I Agree” pot up or button. He further argued that customers are bound by the terms and condition of the User Agreement of the answering OP No.2.

12.              It is admitted fact between the parties that on 28.11.2021, complainant booked a flight of OP No.1 from Hyderabad to Chandigarh for 31.12.2021, through OP No.2, after paying Rs.4978/-, vide documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-6 respectively. It is also admitted fact that the said flight was cancelled and OP No.1 sent intimation in this regard to the complainant through email Annexure C-7 on 14.12.2021 at 11:59 AM and refunded back the amount of Rs.4978/- to the complainant.

13.              The grievance of the complainant is that she was forced to book another Flight of Indigo Airlines through OP No.2, after paying Rs.10,012/-, vide document Annexure C-9 and requested the OPs to refund the difference of fare, given by her, for booking another flight with compensation amount, but they failed to pay the same. Contrary to it, OP No.1 has drawn attention of this Commission towards Clause 1.4 and 3.3.1 of Civil Aviation Requirements, Services “M” Part IV, issued by Office of the Director General of Civil Aviation dated 06.08.2010 and effective from 15.08.2010.

14.              To support her contentions, complainant placed reliance upon case laws titled Air India Express Vs. Sumant Bhardwaj & Ors. (supra), wherein, it is held by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi that B. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 2(1)(g), 14(1) (d) and 21 (b) Airlines – Cancellation of flight – Technical snag – Alternative arrangement not made – Deficiency in service and unfair trade practice – Compensation claimed – Complaint filed – Allowed partly by District Forum – State Commission dismissed appeal – Revision Petition filed before National Commission – Maintainability of – OP failed to produce any evidence or affidavit from Technical Expert regarding cancellation of flight due to technical snag – OP had not attempted for the correction and just informed the passengers about the cancellation of flight – OP cannot divulge from its responsibilities by mere printing rules on e-ticket – Passengers suffer hardships such situation – Once the tickets have been issued it becomes their duty to transport passengers to their destination – Compensation and punitive costs awarded”. However, with the above-mentioned observations, the revision petition, filed by the Revisionist i.e. Air India Express, was dismissed, on the ground of delay and also on merits, and the order passed by the Hon’ble State Commission was upheld.

15.              In Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. Versus Jagroop Kaur and others (supra), it was held by the Hon’ble Chandigarh State Commission that “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 2(1)(g), 14(1) (d) and 15 Airlines- Cancellation of flight without prior intimation to passengers – No alternate flight arranged – Complainant suffered mental agony and harassment and forced to purchase the ticket of another flight at a higher rates – District Forum allowed the complaint and awarded Rs.60,000/- compensation as and Rs.15,000/- costs of litigation –After cancellation of flight, appellant offered tickets to complainants for next flight subject to availability of seats, whereas, it was its duty to arrange confirmed tickets for complainants for their hassle-free journey- Since the appellants failed to do so, the complainants were left with no other option but to ask for refund of fare, which was refunded and then were forced to make arrangements themselves for air ticket of another airlines – From Jammu to Chandigarh they had to travel by taxi which resulted in physical harassment, untold mental agony, inconvenience and discomfort to them – Therefore, they were entitled to compensation which was rightly granted – However the award of Rs.60,000 as compensation by the District Forum, reduced to Rs.30,000 and cost of Rs.15,000 reduced to Rs.10,000 – Appeal partly allowed”. However, with the above-mentioned observations, the appeal filed by the appellant was partly accepted and the impugned order was modified to the extent that “appellant/OP Nos. 1 & 2 shall pay Rs.30,000 as compensation and Rs.10,000 as litigation expenses to the respondent/complainant.
16.              The facts of the present case, is squarely covered, under the aforesaid authorities cited above, because, in the present case also, on 28.11.2021, complainant booked a flight from Hyderabad to Chandigarh on 31.12.2021 with OP No.1, through OP No.2, after paying consideration amount of Rs.4978/-, but after some days i.e. on 14.12.2021, OP No.1 has simply sent an email to the complainant regarding cancellation of that flight, without assigning any sufficient reason for that cancellation. Moreover, OP No.1 did not bother to make any alternative arrangement for the complainant regarding his said visit from Hyderabad to Chandigarh on 31.12.2021. As such, complainant suffered physical harassment and mental agony, and left with no other option, but to book another Flight of Indigo Airlines, through OP No.2, after making the exorbitant amount of Rs.10,012/-. The above act and conduct of OP No.1, amounts to unfair trade practice as well as gross deficiency in service.

17.              So, keeping in view the ratio of the case laws, laid down by the superior Fora, in the aforesaid cases and the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that OP No.1, not only liable to pay the difference of fare amount of Rs.5034/- (4978-10012), to the complainant but also liable to pay the compensation amount with litigation expenses. Since the complainant has not leveled any specific allegations of deficiency in service against OP No.2, nor the same was proved, therefore, present complaint, against OP No.2, is liable to be dismissed. 

18.              Thus, as a sequel of aforesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint against OP No.1, and dismiss the same against OP No.2. We direct OP No.1 to pay the difference amount of Rs.5034/- (4978-10012), to the complainant, alongwith interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of filing of present complaint, till its realization, within 45 days, from today. OP No.1 is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/-, on account of physical harassment and mental agony, suffered by the complainant as-well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges, to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly.     

19.              In default of compliance of this order, proceedings shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as non-compliance of Court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records, after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission:

Dt.:23.11.2023.

                                                                                       (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                       President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha).             (Suman Rana).              

Member.                                  Member.

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.