Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/232/2015

Anita Malhotra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Grand Travel Planners (P) Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Rohit Sharma

23 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/232/2015
Date of Institution	:	15/04/2015
Date of Decision	:	23/08/2016

 

1.     Anita Malhotra wife of Sanjeev Malhotra

2.     Sanjeev Malhotra

3.     Prerna Malhotra daughter of Sanjeev Malhotra

        All residents of H.No.2236, Sector 19-C, Chandigarh

…..Complainants

V E R S U S

1.     Grand Travel Planners (P) Ltd., through Authorised signatory, Chamber No.14-16, Ist Floor, Sector 55-56, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh

2.     Air China, through Authorised signatory, Ground Floor, E-9, Connaught House, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.

……Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	DR. MANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

               

                                                                       

For complainants	:	Sh. Rohit Sharma, Advocate.
For OP-1	:	Sh. Vaneesh Khanna, Advocate
For OP-2	:	Sh. Gursimranjit Singh, Advocate

                       

PER DR. MANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

1.         Smt. Anita Malhotra, Sh. Sanjeev Malhotra  and Ms. Prerna Malhotra, complainants have brought this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Grand Travel Planners (P) Ltd. and another, Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs),  praying for refund of amount of Rs.2,17,500/- alongwith interest @ 18%; reimbursement of US$ 1340 i.e. the amount spent on expenses for additional stay, taxi etc.; compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.22,000/- as costs of litigation.

                In brief, the facts of the case are that the son of complainants No.1 & 2 and brother of complainant No.3 was settled in Folsom, San Francisco, USA.  The complainants booked three return air tickets from OP-1 for New Delhi-San Francisco flight of OP-2 on the specific recommendation of OP-1 who assured that OP-2 was a good airline having lease delays or cancellations. The complainants spent Rs.2,17,500/- in purchasing the tickets. The said tickets were confirmed tickets for New Delhi to San Francisco flight scheduled for 17.6.2014 (Air China-CA 985) and for San Francisco to New Delhi flight (Air China-CA 986) scheduled for 10.7.2014. The complainants boarded the Air China flight CA 985 from New Delhi via Beijing to san Francisco and reached on the same day i.e. 17.6.2014.  After staying at San Francisco for a period of 23 days, the complainants were to return to New Delhi on 10.7.2014. The complainants reached the San Francisco airport for boarding the Air China flight CA 986, for which they had confirmed tickets.  However, the complainants were informed that the flight had been cancelled and the same would be scheduled for the next day i.e. 11.7.2014. The complainants were neither provided boarding or lodging facility for 24 hours delay nor were they provided food etc. The complainants had to return to Folsom i.e. the place where their son/brother was residing for overnight stay and again travelled on 11.7.2014 to San Francisco airport and ultimately boarded the Air China flight CA 947. It is alleged that on account of cancellation of the flight, the complainants had to bear additional expenses for taxi amounting to $ 1140 for the additional trip to and from Folsom to San Francisco airport and had to bear other expenses including baggage trolley charges and other miscellaneous expenses for overnight stay amounting to $ 200.  The complainants further suffered agony and harassment on account of the aforesaid as alternate arrangements had to be made by them for travel, stay, food etc.  It is alleged that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  The complainants sent a legal notice to the OPs for reimbursement of the loss suffered by them and to compensate them, but, the OPs did not pay any heed to the request of the complainants. Hence, this complaint claiming the reliefs mentioned above. 

2.         OP-1 resisted the claim of the complainants, inter alia, taking the preliminary objection that no cause of action accrued to the complainants to file the present complaint against OP-1 and in the entire case no deficiency in service has been attributed to it.  It is further pleaded that as per terms and conditions, OP-1 cannot be held responsible for cancellation of the flight or delay in flight etc. OP-1 admitted that complainants had purchased the tickets from it and the tickets were issued by it as per demand of the complainants on behalf of OP-2 and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1.  OP-1 denied about cancellation of flight from San Francisco to New Delhi for want of knowledge.  It is pleaded that OP-1 had never assured the complainants regarding the services to be provided by OP-2 as it is not the domain of OP-1 and it is only OP-2 who is responsible to compensate its passengers.  Thus, OP-1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 
3.         OP-2 also resisted the complaint of the complainants. It has not denied the contents of para 4(iii) regarding having the confirmed tickets by the complainants for the Air China flight CA 986 and its cancellation and also about boarding the next flight on 11.7.2014.  It is alleged that the complainants boarded the flight from San Francisco to New Delhi on 11.7.2014. It is pleaded that the policy for arranging accommodation to the passengers whose flight is cancelled is only for those who come from other cities, which is not the case in the present complaint. It is alleged that the complainants have not annexed any proof of additional expenses.  Thus, OP-2 also prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 
4.         Rejoinder was filed by the complainants denying all the averments in the written statement of the OP-2.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
6.         We have gone through the record, including the written arguments of OPs 1 & 2, and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsels for the complainant and OP-2.
7.         The learned counsel for the complainants argued that the complainants purchased the return air tickets from OP-1 to visit San Francisco, USA. The tickets were purchased on the assurance of OP-1 that there were remote chances of cancellation of the flights, but, in spite of confirmed tickets, when on 10.7.2014, the complainants reached San Francisco airport to return to New Delhi, they were informed that their flight was cancelled and that their flight was scheduled for the next day i.e. 11.7.2014. No arrangement for their stay or food etc. was made by the OPs at the San Francisco airport, as such, the OPs are deficient in services.  He argued that the complainants had to spend about Rs.87,000/- on taxi as well as other miscellaneous expenses for overnight stay, as such, the OPs be directed to compensate the complainants for the loss suffered by them as well as for mental and physical harassment faced by them.
8.         On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP-1 contended that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1.  OP-1 is not responsible for cancellation of the flight and the fault, if any, lies with OP-2.  He further contended that OP-1 gave the tickets which were confirmed, as such, its duty was over and nothing more was required to be done by it.  There was no assurance by OP-1 that the flight would not be cancelled or would not be delayed nor any such assurance can be given by OP-1 as delay or cancellation of flight is not under the control of OP-1. Hence, the complaint be dismissed against OP-1.
9.         The counsel for OP-2 argued that though it is not disputed that the flight, which was to be boarded by the complainants, was cancelled, but, the same was cancelled due to unavoidable circumstances and thereafter a flight was scheduled for the next day, which was boarded by the complainants.  As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-2.  He argued that no proof has been given by the complainants for the expenses made by them during their one day stay at San Francisco, as such, the allegation of the complainants that they spent about Rs.87,000/- cannot be believed. 
10.         Annexure C-1 are the copies of the air tickets purchased by the complainants from OP-1. It is not disputed that the tickets were confirmed.  It is also admitted case of the parties that the complainants visited San Francisco by boarding the flight on 17.6.2014.  It is also admitted that on 10.7.2014 the complainants were to board Air China CA 986 flight, for which also they had confirmed tickets, but, the said flight was cancelled and the same was rescheduled for the next day i.e. 11.7.2014.  Thus, the complainants had to spend one day at San Francisco.  It is also admitted by OP-2 that no boarding and lodging facilities were provided to the complainants after cancellation of their flight. 
11.         So far OP-1 is concerned, its duty was only to arrange the return air tickets for the complainants which it had arranged and the tickets were confirmed. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1. OP-1 could not have assured that there would be no delay or cancellation of the flight as it had no control over OP-2 or its flights. The complainants knew that the job of OP-1 is only to arrange the air tickets and once the confirmed air tickets were handed over to the complainants, the duty of OP-1 was over.  The averment of the complainants that OP-1 assured that there would be no cancellation or delay of the flight cannot be accepted as even the complainants knew that OP-1 has no control over OP-2 or the scheduled flight.  As such, we are of the opinion that neither the complainants have any cause of action against OP-1 nor there is any deficiency in service on its part.
12.         Once the complainants have confirmed air tickets from San Francisco to New Delhi for Air China flight CA 986, then the burden was on OP-2 to explain as to what were the circumstances which led to the cancellation of the flight. OP-2 in its written statement did not explain any reason for cancellation of the flight.  Once OP-2 has failed to give a specific reason for cancellation of the flight, then it can be said that the circumstances which led to the cancellation of the flight were not such which were beyond the control of OP-2.  So, it can be presumed that because of over booking the complainants were not allowed to board the flight for which they had the confirmed tickets.  The conduct of OP-2 in not allowing the complainants to board the flight for which they were having the confirmed air tickets or the cancellation of the flight, without just reason, amounts to deficiency in service on its part. 
13.         The complainants are not entitled to refund of the ticket amount as claimed by them because they boarded the flights from New Delhi to San Francisco and back.  Once the complainants have returned on the scheduled flight on 11.7.2014, they are left with no right to claim the refund of the tickets amount. However, the complainants are entitled for the expenditure incurred by them for their forced stay of one day at San Francisco.  It is pertinent to mention that the complainants themselves pleaded that since on 10.7.2014 the flight was cancelled, they returned to the house of their son/brother at Folsom and on the next day again went to the airport. The complainants though have claimed a sum of US $ 1340 (approx. Rs.87,000/-) i.e. the amount spent by them on expenses for additional stay, taxi etc., but, they have only produced photocopies of two taxi receipts dated 7.10.2014 (Annexure C-5) alongwith their rejoinder which are of US$ 470 and US$ 481 totaling US$ 951. However, the said receipts seems to be procured ones and cannot be believed.
14.         On the other hand, the distance from San Francisco airport to Folsom is approximately 118 miles and same distance was required to be covered on return from Folsom to San Francisco.  The one way taxi fare for the said route is US $166 – US $217. One dollar is equivalent to approximately Rs.67.14 (all this information is as taken from the internet). If the taxi fare is taken at the maximum, the complainants must have spent US $434 for the said journey. After converting into Indian currency, the said amount comes out to be US $434 x 67.14 = Rs.29,138.76 (say Rs.29,140/-). The complainants had planned their return to New Delhi from San Francisco, USA for which they reached the San Francisco, USA airport well in time to board the scheduled flight on 10.7.2014, but, all their efforts proved futile because of sudden cancellation of the flight.  The complainants had to suffer a lot of physical harassment and mental agony because of cancellation of the flight. Hence, the complainants are also entitled to compensation for harassment.
15.         In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to succeed. The same is accordingly partly allowed qua OP-2. The OP-2 is directed as under:-

(i)     To pay to the complainants Rs.29,140/- being the amount spent by them for hiring a taxi due to cancellation of the scheduled flight.

(ii)    To pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainants as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to them;

(iii)   To pay Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation to the complainants. 

16.         This order be complied with by the OP-2 within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which it 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.
17.         The consumer complaint qua OP-1 is dismissed with no order as to costs. 
18.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
23/08/2016	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Dr. Manjit Singh]
hg	Member	Member	President