FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT
SHRI ASHOKE KUMAR GANGULY, MEMBER
This is an application U/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The complainant Shreyasi Mukherjee was induced to avail the offer of travel for enjoying a vacation to Oslo and other cities in Norway published in the website of a popular travel portal “goibibo.com”. The route described in the ticket from goibibo is like this.
- Onward Journey Route : Kolkata – Delhi- Doha – Istambul – Oslo.
- Return Journey Route : Oslo – Istambul – Delhi – Kolkata.
The journey from Kolkata to Delhi dated 13.04.2019 was booked online on 12.04.2019 by Flight No. G – 9106 ( Go Air Airlines ) and the return journey from Delhi to Kolkata dated 25.04.2019 was also booked on the same date by Flight No. 6E – 377 ( Indigo Airlines ).
The Ibibo issued separate PNR Nos. for journey from Kolkata – Delhi and return journey from Delhi to Kolkata but they issued ticket bearing single PNR No. RBWV8W for journey from New Delhi – Doha – Istambul – Oslo and return journey from Oslo – Istambul – Delhi. The total cost of the tickets is Rs 58,757/-
The complainant accordingly took the flight on 13.04.2019 from Kolkata to reach Delhi on 14.04.2019 at around 01-30 a.m. The next flight to Doha was at 10-25 a.m. on 14.04.2019. As per the ticket issued to her the New Delhi – Doha and Doha – Istambul flights were to be operated by Indigo Airlines. Even though the PNR issued was of Turkish Airlines. The complainant approached the Indigo Airlines at 06-25 am but surprisingly she was told that her name was not found against the PNR No.RBWV8W and was suggested to enquire into the Turkish Airlines counter who also refused her check in on the grounds that the New Delhi – Doha – Istambul flights were operated by Indigo Airlines and they expressed their helplessness in this regard. On further query to the Turkish Airlines she was informed that there might be some booking discrepancy for which she had to talk to Ibibo Officials. After a prolonged discussion with Ibibo officials she was offered a Turkish Airlines ticket with the same PNR No. With that ticket she rushed to the Turkish Airlines Counter which was by that time closed. She then again rushed to the Delhi Airport Information Counter to talk to Turkish Airlines but the Information Centre pointed out that the tickets pertains to Indigo Airlines as per timing of the flight for which she again rushed to the Indigo Counter but that counter by that time was also closed. Thereafter she contacted Ibibo officials who suggested her to make fresh booking and with the new booking reference they would try to help her. The complainant demanded fresh set of tickets through any airlines to enable her to reach her destination on time as she has onward journey on 15.04.2019 to Bergen, Norway and in case of late arrival, she would miss that journey too. She was assured by the Ibibo officials that senior executives would call her back but inspite of waiting for more than an hour nobody from Ibibo contacted her. Finding no other alternative she booked a separate ticket for her return journey from Delhi to Kolkata on 14.04.2019 at 6-00 p.m. flight forgoing the expenses already incurred which includes the advance payment for staying at Norway also. After that she also had to face difficulties in leaving International Terminal 3 for Domestic Terminal 1 at the Delhi Airport. The complainant after her return to Kolkata on 15.04.2019 sent e mail to the Ibibo listing all the events and demanding full return for the entire booking as well as compensation for the expenses for her return journey to Kolkata and all the bookings she had made for her stay at Norway. She further sent a registered post with the hard copies of her e mail of demand for compensation dated 22.04.2019 and 11.05.2019 to which no resolution has been received till date.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the services provided by the Ibibo and both Indigo and Turkish Airlines the complainant has approached the Commission for justice with relief as detailed in the complaint petition.
The OP 1 & 2 has contested the case by filing their WV and submits that the OP 1 acts as a facilitator for booking the air ticket / hotel bookings on behalf of its customer with the concerned service providers and the same is confirmed directly by the service providers. Upon receiving the confirmation from the concerned service providers, a unique Booking ID is generated and thereafter, confirmed bookings/tickets is shared with the Customer.
The online transactions by a user on the Website are governed by the terms and conditions which are applicable on the person intending to purchase the service offered by the OP 1 and for that the intended traveler is required to enter into an E- contract by consenting to the terms and conditions of the OP 1. The OP 1 had provided confirmed Air tickets to the complainant but the same had not been honored by the concerned airlines i.e. Indigo, as the PNR was not reflected in their system, despite it being accessible by the OPs. As soon as the OP was contacted by the complainant, the resolution was provided to her. Also the tickets were resent to the complainant immediately.
The OP No. 3 has also contested the case by filing their WV on behalf of InterGlove Aviation Ltd., wrongly impleaded as Rono Dutta, CEO of InterGlove Aviation Ltd.,
They submit that this Written Version is restricted to the complainant’s booking under PNR Nos. UYST4L. There is no dispute with the PNR No. R9K4UR since the complainant has successfully travelled on board Indigo Flight No. 6E- 307 to the destination of her choice. The remaining PNRs i.e. SBMCRA and RBWV8W have not been issued by them and thus cannot be responded to by them. The complainant has concealed the fact that her bookings for travel from New Delhi – Doha- Istambul – Oslo and Oslo- Istambul – New Delhi had been booked through Turkish Airlines by way of a Code Share Agreement between Turkish Airlines and InterGlobe Aviation Limited, details are present in the Website of InterGlobe Aviation Limited. As per terms of the Code Share Agreement the complainant was required to make separate booking with InterGlobe Aviation Ltd., from New Delhi to Istambul via Doha and from Istambul to Oslo with Turkish Airlines. As per record, no booking has been made by the complainant with InterGlobe Aviation Ltd., for travel from New Delhi to Istambul. The booking was made by the complainant through a third party travel agent namely GoIbibo.
No booking amount had been paid either by the complainant or by the travel agent i.e. Goibibo.to InterGlobe Aviation Ltd. for booking of tickets with Turkish airlines.
Complainant’s booking appears to be incomplete as only the Record Locator Number RBWV8W was generated and no PNR was generated for any IndiGo Flights at all. The complainant has concealed the fact that no IndiGo PNR number was generated for booking with Turkish Airlines. If at all it was generated the complainant has not shared with the InterGlobe Aviation Ltd. at the Delhi Airport for her journey from Delhi to Doha – Istambul – Oslo.
For her return journey on 25.04.2019 on board IndiGo Flight 6E -377 the complainant was aware of the binding terms and conditions of carriage known as IndiGo CoC which governs the rights and duties of the complainant and InterGlobe Aviation Ltd.
The stipulated deadline to board the IndiGo Flight 6E-377 was 0705 hours as the scheduled time for departure for this Flight was 0750 hours. That the complainant had not reached the check in counter for IndiGo Flight 6E- 377 by this time which was solely her responsibility. Since the complainant failed to adhere to the check in timelines InterGlobe Aviation Ltd. was constrained to declare the complainant as NoShow and was liable to forfeit the entire booking amount except the govt. fees and taxes which was refunded to the travel agent on 17.05.2019. The complainant becomes bad in law for SUPPRESSIO VERI AND SUPPRESSIO FALSI. Since the booking was done through the Turkish Airlines and not through InterGlobe Aviation Limited, no IndiGo PNR number was generated. It is submitted that on a perusal of the record locator Number on the official Turkish Airlines website it clearly shows the booking as incomplete, a fact which has been deliberately concealed by the complainant.
The OP 4 has also filed their WV and submits that the complainant was informed by the customer care of the Answering OP that there might be booking discrepancy for the subject tour for which she should contact goibibo officials. Status of the ticket issued to the complainant is open and the complainant is eligible for full refund of the value of the ticket. The Answering OP is nowhere involved in the entire alleged incident as the complainant has booked the ticket from GoIbibo, i.e. the OP No. 1. The Answering OP is only liable for the tickets issued to the complainant. The OP 4 is willing to refund the full price of the ticket only.
Points for Determination
In the light of the above pleadings, the following points necessarily have come up for determination.
1) Whether the OPs are deficient in rendering proper service to the Complainant?
2) Whether the OPs have indulged in unfair trade practice?
3) Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
Point Nos. 1 to 3 :-
The above mentioned points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity in discussion.
We have travelled over the documents placed on record.
While perusing the records it is observed that the complainant Ms. Shreyasi Mukherjee intended to travel to different places of Norway for which she booked air tickets through GoIbibo being the OP1 and accordingly paid a sum of Rs.58,757/- to them. The complainant thereafter took the flight on 13.04.2019 from Kolkata to reach Delhi on 14.04.2019 at around 01-30 a.m. The next flight to Doha was at 10-25 a.m. on 14.04.2019. As per the ticket issued to her the New Delhi – Doha and Doha – Istambul flights were to be operated by Indigo Airlines. Even though the PNR issued was of Turkish Airlines. But the complainant could not avail the scheduled flight to Doha because of the inherent problem of the ticket offered by the OP 1. The OP 1 & 2 in their written Version took the stand that they are the mere facilitator for providing confirmed tickets from the service providers and if there is any problem in the tickets the problem is to be sorted out with the respective Airlines where they have no role to play with. The OP 3 & 4 have elaborately explained the difficulties faced by them in accommodating the complainant in her subject flight. On going through the entire records it is absolutely clear to us that the OP 1 & 2 have not performed their duties and responsibilities in making the ticket absolutely free from all encumbrances. The complainant is a mere traveler. Her duty was to pay the consideration money for purchasing the tickets which she has performed. The so called Code Share arrangement in between the concerned Airlines are not supposed to be known to the traveler. It is absolutely the duties and responsibilities of the Authority who has procured the tickets on behalf of the traveler. The incidents happened in between is the result of providing defective encumbered tickets provided to the traveler for which the OP 1 & 2 cannot be escaped from their liabilities. It is further observed from the record that the OP 1 & 2 has submitted one settlement option vide their letter dated 02.02.2021 that they are willing to settle the issue by paying the cost of tickets i.e. Rs.57,600/- along with an additional amount of Rs.10,000/- as a goodwill gesture towards full and final settlement of all the claims raised by the complainant against the OPs including all involved herein. This is a clear submission on the part of the OP 1 & 2 that they are admitting their faults and lapses in the entire episode. As such, we don’t have to proceed further in concluding the subject matter.
Under the above facts and circumstances we are of the opinion that the complainant has established the case against the OP 1 & 2 and failed to establish deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the remaining OP No. 3 & 4.
All the points under determination are answered accordingly.
In the result, the Consumer Complaint succeeds
Hence,
Ordered
That the Consumer Complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP No.1 & 2 and dismissed against OP No. 3 & 4 with the following directions.
- The OP 1 & 2 are directed to refund jointly and severally the amount of Rs.58,757/- to the complainant being the amount paid for the tickets.
- The OP 1 & 2 are further directed to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation towards harassment and mental agony caused to the complainant.
- The OP 1 & 2 are also directed to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as litigation costs.
The above orders are to be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of the order failing which the complainant will be at liberty to put the order into execution as per rules.
Copy of the Judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost as per C.P. Act and the
Judgment be uploaded to the website of the Commission forthwith for perusal of the parties.
