Punjab

StateCommission

FA/13/167

Zanus Group through Sumit Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gurbax Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Hem Raj Bhardwaj

13 Mar 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB   DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.

 

  First Appeal No.167 of 2013                                                    

             Date of institution  :    18.02.2013

Date of decision     :    13.03.2015

 

Zanus Group, through Sumit Sharma S/o Surinder Mohan Sharma, R/o House No.352, Sector 32-A, Chandigarh (U.T.)

…….Appellant/Opposite Party No.1

Versus

1.      Gurbax Singh S/o Charan Singh, R/o H.No.4800, Pancham    Society, Sector-68, Mohali.

                                                                  …Respondent/Complainant

2.      Jet Airways (India) Limited, Civil Airport, Chandigarh through.

3.      Jet Airways (India) Limited, Siroya Centre, Sahar Airport          Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai.

                       …Respondents Nos.2 & 3/Opposite Parties Nos.2 & 3

First Appeal against the order dated 04.10.2012 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali).

Quorum:- 

 

          Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President

                        Mr. Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member

                        Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member

Present:-

 

   For the appellant               : Shri H.R. Bhardwaj, Advocate

   For respondent No.1          : None.

   For respondents No.2&3             : Shri Sunil K. Dixit, Advocate.

 

 

JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH,  PRESIDENT :

 

                    The appellant/opposite party No.1 has preferred this appeal against the order dated 04.10.2012 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) (in short, “District Forum”), vide which the complaint filed by Gurbax Singh, respondent No.1/complainant, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was allowed against this opposite party with Rs.5,000/-, as litigation expenses and it was directed to pay Rs.74,025/-; which included Rs.25,000/-, as compensation for the harassment suffered by the complainant. The District Forum also directed this opposite party to pay interest on the sum of Rs.49,025/- at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from 22.07.2011 till the date of payment and interest at the same rate on the compensation of  Rs.25,000/- from the date of institution of the complaint till the date of payment of that amount in case the same was not paid, within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

2. The complainant alleged, in his complaint, that his son Amardeep Singh bought air ticket from opposite party No.1 for travelling by air from New Delhi to Wellington (New Zealand), by making payment of Rs.36,487/- to opposite party No.2, vide cheque No.536306 dated 06.06.2011. Opposite party No.1 gave itinerary to Amardeep Singh and as per that itinerary, he was to travel upto Singapore on Flight No.QF-3954 on 20.07.2011 and then was to board Flight No.QF-6 on the same day from Singapore to Sydney and from Sydney to Wellington, he was to travel by another Flight No.QF-47 on 21.07.2011. Accordingly, three boarding passes were provided to him by opposite party No.2. The first boarding pass for travelling from Delhi to Singapore was of opposite parties Nos.2 & 3; the second and third boarding passes for travelling from Singapore to Sydney and from Sydney to Wellington, respectively, were of QANTAS Airways. Opposite party No.2 allowed him to board the first flight from Delhi to Singapore. When he arrived at Singapore Airport, he was surprised and shocked when he was not allowed to board the next flight of QANTAS Airways and was told that he was not having the requisite Transit Visa to Sydney. He was stranded in that alien country on the Airport and had no other option, but to buy another ticket, for travelling to Wellington by Flight No.NZ-439, for a sum of Rs.97,476/-. He had to pay extra 420 Singapore Dollars for extra luggage and also spent Rs.55,000/- for his stay at Singapore. Opposite party No.2 issued the ticket, knowingly fully well that he had no Transit Visa for Sydney. As a result of the said act and conduct of opposite party No.1, he (complainant) suffered huge mental loss and financial setback. He visited the office of that opposite party a number of times for redressal of his grievance, but no attention was paid towards his genuine claim. It was the result of the conduct of the opposite parties that his son was forced to purchase another ticket from Singapore and had to spend the above said amounts. That conduct on the part of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. As a result thereof; he suffered mentally, physically and monetarily. He prayed for issuance of directions to the opposite parties to pay the sum of Rs.96,476/-; for which the second ticket was purchased by his son for going from Singapore to Wellington; to pay 420 Singapore Dollars, which were paid as the luggage charges; Rs.55,000/-, as the amount spent by his son for his stay at Singapore; and Rs.2,00,000/-, as compensation for the mental pain, suffering and harassment suffered by him. He also claimed interest at the rate of 24% per annum on all these amounts.
3. Opposite party No.1 did not appear before the District Forum and was proceeded against ex parte. Opposite parties Nos.2 & 3 filed joint written reply. In the written reply, they admitted that the son of the complainant was allowed to board the flight to Singapore and that he was to catch further flight to Sydney of QANTAS Airlines. While denying the other allegations made in the complaint against them, they pleaded that they are renowned Airline Company and are widely acclaimed for their reputation and quality of service not only in India but also across the globe. They hold Accreditation Certificates of different countries, which itself shows that this Airline is of international standard for Quality Management System. It is one of the premier Airlines in India and is comparable to the best anywhere in the world. They have no relationship with opposite party No.1, who had issued the itinerary to the son of the complainant. Their Airline was to carry the son of the complainant only upto Singapore and thereafter, he was to travel by QANTAS Airlines; with whom this Airline has no concern. Neither the complainant nor his son had ever any transaction with them and, as such, the complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint against them. Their role under the Code Share Agreement with QANTAS Airlines was only upto Singapore and the same was duly performed by them. Any transaction or difficulty faced by the son of the complainant beyond that point, cannot be attributed to them. They are not aware about the reason as to why his son was not allowed to travel further. However, it is widely accepted rule that if a passenger wishes to travel to any international destination from his home country, he should have a valid visa or a Transit Visa, as the case may be. The son of the complainant had no valid Transit Visa to travel through Sydney to Wellington. The complainant should have confirmed that fact before purchasing the ticket. It was opposite party No.1, who without checking the important documents, issued the ticket; as a result of which the son of the complainant could not travel further from Singapore. QANTAS Airlines is a necessary party and still, it has not been impleaded as such. The deficiency in service was only on the part of opposite party No.1 and no such deficiency in service can be attributed to them. The cause of action, if any, arose at Singapore; where the son of the complainant was not allowed to travel further and, as such, the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. They prayed for the dismissal thereof, with exemplary costs; being false and afterthought.
4. Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, allowed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party No.1 and respondents Nos.2 & 3/opposite parties Nos.2 & 3. No one appeared for the complainant at the time of the arguments. We have carefully gone through the records of the case.
6. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party No.1 that the impugned order was passed ex parte against opposite party No.1 and the same is liable to be set aside, on the ground that it was never properly served before the District Forum and could not have been proceeded against ex parte. The notice sent under registered cover was received back unclaimed and, as such, no presumption of service could have been drawn. He further submitted that no deficiency in service can be attributed to opposite party No.1, as its only duty was to issue the air ticket after the receipt of the amount and the same was done by it. It was for the son of the complainant to satisfy himself, as to whether he was entitled to travel by air from Singapore to Sydney, in the absence of a Transit Visa? In fact, the connecting flight was such that he was just to board the connecting flight within two hours of his arrival and for such passengers; no such Transit Visa was required. The District Forum committed an illegality, while allowing the complaint against this opposite party and the order passed by it is liable to be set aside.
7. A perusal of the records of the District Forum shows that the complaint was admitted on 08.06.2012 and notices were ordered to be issued to the opposite parties for 22.06.2012. The notices through registered post were sent to them on 12.06.2012. On the date fixed the registered cover, so sent to opposite party No.1, had not been received back and for awaiting the same, the complaint was adjourned to 13.07.2012. The registered cover was received on 23.06.2012 with the report “Unclaimed”. On 13.07.2012, opposite party No.1 was proceeded against ex parte, by observing that the receiving back of the registered cover with the report “Unclaimed” means that it had knowledge of the contents of the notice and refused to receive the same.
8. Even if the District Forum was to draw such a presumption of the knowledge of the contents of the notice by opposite party No.1, it was not justified to draw that presumption on 13.07.2012, as no notice was sent to that opposite party through registered post for that date. When the registered cover had not been received back on 22.06.2012, the District Forum should have issued a fresh notice to opposite party No.1. The first illegality was committed by the District Forum by passing the order on 08.06.2012 for issuing notices to the opposite parties for 22.06.2012, by not keeping in view Regulation-10 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. That Regulation provides that the District Forum should ordinarily issue the notice for the period; which shall be for a period of 30 days and when the question of raising the presumption of service arises, the 30 days notice is mandatory. The second illegality was committed on 22.06.2012, when instead of issuing fresh notice on account of the non-receipt of the AD or the registered cover, the complaint was adjourned for awaiting the same. The sending of the notice to opposite party No.1 is not a bare formality and the real purpose is to make it aware of the fact that the complaint has been filed against it and that to answer the same, it is to appear before the District Forum on a particular date. When the presumption of service was drawn by the District Forum on 13.07.2012, there was no such notice; having been sent to opposite party No.1, in which it was informed of that date. In these circumstances, we conclude that the District Forum wrongly proceeded ex parte against opposite party No.1. That itself is a ground for setting aside the impugned order, which was an ex parte order against this opposite party.
9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the District Forum is set aside. The complaint is remanded back to it for deciding the same afresh, by following the due procedure; as laid down in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
10. Parties are directed to appear before it on 22.04.2015. Records of the District Forum be returned immediately.
11.           The appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. It deposited another sum of Rs.20,000/- on 01.03.2013, in compliance of the order dated 21.02.2013 passed by this Commission. Both these sums along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to them.

12. The arguments in this case were heard on 10.03.2015 and the order was reserved.Now, the order be communicated to the parties.

13.           The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

     

     

     

                                                            (JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH)

                                                                           PRESIDENT  

                                                             

     

     

                                                            (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)

                                                                            MEMBER

                                                             

     

     

                                                              (SURINDER PAL KAUR)

    March 13, 2015                                           MEMBER

    (Gurmeet S)