Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/471/2019

Bal Krishan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Happy Easy Go - Opp.Party(s)

Bir Singh

16 May 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                                    Complaint No.:    471 of 2019.

                                                                   Date of institution:         04.11.2019.

                                                                   Date of decision: 16.05.2022

 

Bal Krishan s/o Shri Anant Ram, aged about 75 years, r/o 284, Sector-13, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra.

                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

1. HappyEasyGo India Pvt. Ltd., 1^st Floor, Plot No.883, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Sector-19, Gurugram, Haryana-122016, though its Authorized Signatory.
2. AIR India, 3 Safdarjung Airport, Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi-110003, through its Authorized Signatory.

...Respondents.

 

CORAM:   NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   NEELAM, MEMBER.

                   ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL, MEMBER.           

 

Present:       Shri Bir Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Opposite Party No.1 ex-parte vide order dated 21.03.2022.

                   Shri Harpal Singh, Advocate for Opposite Party No.2.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “Act”).

2.                It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant purchased/booked online round-trip ticket of Air India for three travelers through OP No.1 after making payment of Rs.1,97,512/- from his account (Net Banking). The tickets were for Delhi-New York – Delhi with Dec 20, 2019 as date of onward journey and Jan 10, 2019 as date of return journey. In the said ticket, the title of one of the travelers, Renu Vashist, was wrongly ticked as “Mr.” in place of “Mrs.” and he immediately brought this fact/discrepancy into the notice of OP No.1 within 24 hours of booking the ticket by contacting it on phone (1860-313-9999). The complainant was told that the travel agency would immediately inform to OP No.2 in this regard and he was asked to wait for 72 hours for the reply. Thereafter, he dropped an email to the agency, immediately (at 01:04 PM on 5^th Oct) and he got no reply to this email from the OPs in the promised 72 hours. He again contacted to OP No.1 (employee Mr. Deepak) on 08.10.2019), who told that the delay was due to weekend closing and Dussehra holiday and he should contact the OP next day. In the meanwhile, he also contacted (a number of times) to OP No.2 (1860-233-1407) on 05.10.2019 and again on 09.10.2019. Each time he was told by the employees of OP No.2 (i.e. Prateek, Ruchira and Mohini) that title correction was no problem, but the matter has to be initiated by the OP No.1.
Again he approached to OP No.1 in the morning of 09.10.2019 and explained the position of OP No.2 in this regard. The complainant was told that they would proceed in the matter. On the same day at 10:44 AM, he received an email from the OP No.1 and was surprised when he read the said email, wherein, it was written “As we have checked with airlines name correction not permitted. Kindly talk to airlines for further assistance”. The complainant was frustrated with this repeated shunting between the two points. He dropped an email to the OP No.1 on the same day (03:17 PM) as last attempt of the complainant. As the traveler Renu Vashist was a female, the complainant was apprehensive that any further delay in the matter might result in non-availability of ticket for her in the same flight and she may be exposed to hazards of travelling alone. Under the compelling circumstances, he booked another Air India Ticket for her on the same day. The complainant submitted his grievance to CPGRAMS (Centralised Public Grievance Redressal and Monitoring System) on 11.10.2019. It may be mentioned that subsequent to complainant’s submission of grievance to CPGRAMS, he received an email from OP No.1 on 16.10.2019, asking him to share Passport copy of Renu Vashist. The complainant had regarded any action by the OP No.1 at this stage irrelevant as he had already booked another ticket for her. If title correction was not allowed (as the OP told the complainant 4 days later in its email of October 5, “we have checked with airlines name correction not permitted”), it should have done the same on October 5. This would have helped the complainant, at least, to get the ticket cancelled within 24 hours of booking for full refund and strangly, a week later on 16^th October, the OP No.1 asked the complainant to share a copy of Renu Vashist passport, to see if the correction was possible. On one occasion the OIP informs the complainant that it has checked with the airline, “name correction” was not permitted. On another occasion, it informs that it wanted to check with the airlines, if title correction was possible or not. It is unbelievable that a company should be so much ignorant of the routine policy matters, which it has to so frequently deal with in running its business. It is pertinent to mention here that according to CAR (Civil Aviation Requirements) prescribed by DGCA (Encl. 10) “Airline shall not levy any additional charge for correction in the name of the same person when the error is pointed out by the passenger within 24 hours of making the booking”. The OP No.1 was well aware of this requirement. It deliberately acted to supply wrong, misleading information regarding name/title correction, which amounts to violation of DGCA requirements prescribed for the Subscribers, that is, travel agencies (Enc.11): “The subscriber shall not manipulate information supplied by the CRS/GDS in a manner that would result in biased, inaccurate or misleading information to the consumer”. The complainant made repeated requests to the OP No.1 to refund the price of the ticket, but it flatly refused to hear him. The complainant is a 75 year old senior citizen and the OPs have harassed him and exposed him to great mental agony, hardship and financial loss, which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OPs.

3.                Upon notice of complaint, OP No.2 appeared and filed its written statements. Initially, representative of OP No.1 appeared and filed written statement, but on 21.03.2022, when the case was fixed for evidence of OP No.1, then it failed to appear before the Commission either in person or through any advocate and was proceeded against ex-parte on that date by this Commission.

4.                OP No.1, in its written statement, raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability; locus standi and jurisdiction. The OP No.1 clearly stated in its terms and conditions to the effect that: “HAPPYEASYGO will assist you for amendments in most of the cases, however, there would be few cases where you will need to contact the Airline directly”. On merits, it is submitted that there is no employee in the name of Sonali with the OP No.1, so question of talking to employee having named Sonali does not arise at all. On 05.10.2019, when the complainant approached the OP No.1 for his grievance of title change, the representative of OP No.1 stated that internal team of OP No.1 will do its best for the grievance of the complainant at its level, but the complainant had to contact the OP No.2, because title can be changed only after approval of OP No.2. This reply was as per their terms and conditions. The complainant again contacted the OP No.1 on 05.10.2019 and at this time, he was asked to wait for 72 hours for an update as the title change needs approval of the OP No.2. On 08.10.2019, complainant again contacted the OP No.1 and this time, representative of OP No.1 had stated to wait further, as they have got no update from the OP No.2. The OP No.1 is not responsible for any mistake committed by the complainant but still, OP No.1 had got refunded an amount of Rs.47,336/- and transferred the same in the account of complainant. There is no deficiency on the part of OP No.1, therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.

5.                OP No.2, in its written statement stated that first ticket with wrong surname (Mr. Renu Vashist). Ticket No.0989442839513 was issued by the agent as is mentioned in the complaint. PNR No.YG2KZ. This ticket is still not cancelled by the passenger/agent as it shows confirm for travel on 20.12.2019 and 10.01.2020. As per DGCA rule, change in name/ticket is allowed if the ticket is presented for such change request. OP is not at fault when ticket is not presented for such change/cancellation by the passenger or agent. Passenger bought second ticket with correct title name (Mrs. Renu Vashist) with ticket No.982131416664 directly from Air India ‘Web booking site’. This ticket is also valid for travel on same very dates. Fresh PNR HTFSW. Though passenger did not provide any details of his first ticket in the complaint, which was issued with wrong title, as per Air India Ticket No. mentioned in the complaint is valid for travel with correct name. Thus, neither any deficiency in service nor any damage has been caused to the complainant and present complaint has been filed with ulterior motive and malafide intention and prayed for dismissal the same.

6.                The complainant, in support of his case, tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12 and closed his evidence.

7.                On the other hand, the OP No.1 failed to lead any evidence in its defence. The OP No.2 tendered affidavit Ex.DPW2/A along with document AnnexureA-1 and closed its evidence.

8.                We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file and also the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for both the parties.

9.                Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased/booked online round-trip ticket of Air India for three travelers through OP No.1 after making payment of Rs.1,97,512/- from his account (Net Banking). The tickets were for Delhi-New York – Delhi with Dec 20, 2019 as date of onward journey and Jan 10, 2019 as date of return journey. In the said ticket, the title of one of the travelers, Renu Vashist, was wrongly ticked as “Mr.” in place of “Mrs.” and he immediately brought this fact/discrepancy into the notice of OP No.1 within 24 hours of booking the ticket by contacting it on phone (1860-313-9999). The complainant was told that the travel agency would immediately inform to OP No.2 in this regard and he was asked to wait for 72 hours for the reply. Thereafter, he dropped an email to the agency, immediately (at 01:04 PM on 5^th Oct) and he got no reply to this email from the OPs in the promised 72 hours. The complainant again contacted to OP No.1 (employee Mr. Deepak) on 08.10.2019), who told that the delay was due to weekend closing and Dussehra holiday and he should contact the OP next day. In the meanwhile, the complainant also contacted (a number of times) to OP No.2 (1860-233-1407) on 05.10.2019 and again on 09.10.2019. Each time he was told by the employees of OP No.2 (i.e. Prateek, Ruchira and Mohini) that title correction was no problem, but the matter has to be initiated by the OP No.1. Again he approached to OP No.1 in the morning of 09.10.2019 and explained the position of OP No.2 in this regard. The complainant was told that they would proceed in the matter. On the same day at 10:44 AM, he received an email from the OP No.1 and was surprised when he read the said email, wherein, it was written “As we have checked with airlines name correction not permitted. Kindly talk to airlines for further assistance”.  The complainant was frustrated with this repeated shunting between the two points. He dropped an email to the OP No.1 on the same day (03:17 PM) as last attempt of the complainant. As the traveler Renu Vashist was a female, the complainant was apprehensive that any further delay in the matter might result in non-availability of ticket for her in the same flight and she may be exposed to hazards of travelling alone. Under the compelling circumstances, he booked another Air India Ticket for her on the same day. The complainant submitted his grievance to CPGRAMS (Centralised Public Grievance Redressal and Monitoring System) on 11.10.2019. It may be mentioned that subsequent to complainant’s submission of grievance to CPGRAMS, he received an email from OP No.1 on 16.10.2019, asking him to share Passport copy of Renu Vashist. The complainant had regarded any action by the OP No.1 at this stage irrelevant as he had already booked another ticket for her. On one occasion the OIP informs the complainant that it has checked with the airline, “name correction” was not permitted. On another occasion, it informs that it wanted to check with the airlines, if title correction was possible or not. It is pertinent to mention here that according to CAR (Civil Aviation Requirements) prescribed by DGCA (Encl. 10) “Airline shall not levy any additional charge for correction in the name of the same person when the error is pointed out by the passenger within 24 hours of making the booking”. The OP No.1 was well aware of this requirement. It deliberately acted to supply wrong, misleading information regarding name/title correction, which amounts to violation of DGCA requirements prescribed for the Subscribers, that is, travel agencies (Enc.11): “The subscriber shall not manipulate information supplied by the CRS/GDS in a manner that would result in biased, inaccurate or misleading information to the consumer”. The complainant made repeated requests to the OP No.1 to refund the price of the ticket, but it flatly refused to hear him.

10.              Contents of written statement filed by the OP No.1, be read as his arguments. With the written statement, OP No.1 attached document Mark-A.

11.              The learned counsel for the OP No.2 argued that first ticket with wrong surname (Mr. Renu Vashist). Ticket No.0989442839513 was issued by the agent as is mentioned in the complaint. PNR No.YG2KZ. This ticket is still not cancelled by the passenger/agent as it shows confirm for travel on 20.12.2019 and 10.01.2020. As per DGCA rule, change in name/ticket is allowed if the ticket is presented for such change request. OP is not at fault when ticket is not presented for such change/cancellation by the passenger or agent. Passenger bought second ticket with correct title name (Mrs. Renu Vashist) with ticket No.982131416664 directly from Air India ‘Web booking site’. This ticket is also valid for travel on same very dates. Fresh PNR HTFSW. Though passenger did not provide any details of his first ticket in the complaint, which was issued with wrong title, as per Air India Ticket No. mentioned in the complaint is valid for travel with correct name. Thus, neither any deficiency in service nor any damage has been caused to the complainant and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.

12.              There is no dispute that on 04.10.2019, the complainant booked online round-trip ticket of Air India for three travelers for Delhi - New York - Delhi, after making payment of Rs.1,97,512/-, vide receipt Ex.C-1.

13.              There is also no dispute that in the said ticket, title of one of the travelers, Renu Vashist, was wrongly ticked as “Mr.” in place of “Mrs.” and the complainant brought this fact/discrepancy into the notice of OP No.1, through email Ex.C-4 dated 05.10.2019 (01:04 PM) i.e. within 24 hours of booking the ticket, upon which, the OPs asked the complainant to wait for 72 hours for the reply. Counting 72 hours from 05.10.2019, then it comes to an end on 07.10.2019, but nothing has been done by the OPs in this regard till 09.10.2019 morning and to utter surprise of complainant, on 09.10.2019 at 10:44 AM, the OP No.1 sent email Ex.C-5 to the complainant, wherein, it was mentioned “As we have checked with airlines name corrections not permitted. Kindly talk to airlines for further assistance”. Feeling aggrieved with the act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant sent email on 09.10.2019 (03:17 PM) Ex.C-6 to the OPs, requesting to cancel their tickets and refund the price of ticket or booked fresh ticket of Renu Vashist Ex.C-7, but nothing has been done by the OPs. On 16.10.2019, the OP No.1 wrote email Ex.C-9 to the complainant, asking to sent the passport of Renu Vashist for correction, but since the complainant has purchased the fresh ticket, therefore, there was no use to send the passport of Renu Vashist to the OPs and in this regard, the complainant sent an email to the OPs on 16.10.2019 (11:51 AM) Ex.C-10. The complainant further produced CAR (Civil Aviation Requirements), prescribed by DGCA (Director General of Civil Aviation) as Ex.C11 on the case file and drawn attention of this Commission towards sub-part (e) of Para No.3 Requirements, which reads as under:-

                   3.       Requirements.

                   (e)      The airline shall provide “Look-in option” for a period of 24 hours after booking ticket. During this period passenger can cancel or amend the ticket without any additional charges, except for the normal prevailing fare for the revised flight for which the ticket is sought to be amended”

 

14.              So, in this way, considering the totality of the allegations of the complainant as well as material brought on record by the complainant himself and perusal of above-mentioned CAR, it is clear after booking the ticket, any period passenger can cancel or amend the ticket without any additional charges within 24 hours of its booking, but in the present case, the complainant, who is a 75 year old senior citizen, booked the tickets in question 04.10.2019 and immediately brought the fact/discrepancy in question into the knowledge of OPs via email Ex.C-4 on 05.10.2019 and thereafter, made repeated requests to them through email as well as telephonically, but nothing has been done by OP No.1 or even by OP No.2, after lapsing a period of five days respectively i.e. up-till 09.10.2019 and in this way, they harassed mentally and physically to a 75 years old aged senior citizen, which is an act of gross negligence on the part of both the OPs.

15.              In Para No.2 of “Preliminary Objections” of written statement of OP No.1, it admitted refunding and then transferring an amount of Rs.47,336/- in the account of complainant and in this regard, produced document Mark-A, on the case file and this fact was also not denied by counsel for the complainant. No doubt, the complainant purchased fresh ticket in Rs.64,813/- and if 10% (tax etc.) be deducted from the said amount, then balance comes to Rs.58332/- (64813- 6481 i.e. 10%). Since OP No.1 refunded only Rs.47,336/- to the complainant, therefore, it is liable to pay the balance amount of ticket of Rs.10996/-  (58332 – 47336), to the complainant.

16.              From the perusal of case file, it shows that the complainant filed the present complaint on 04.11.2019 and the OPs refunded part amount of Rs.47,336/- on 03.01.2020 i.e. after two months from the date of filing the present complaint by the complainant. Moreover, both the OPs had not resolved the grievance of the complainant, despite repeated requests made by the complainant telephonically and through email and shifting the burden on each other, as such, certainly the complainant is entitled to get compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him due to an act of negligence in service by both the OPs.

17.              In view of our above discussion, we partly accept the present complaint against OPs. The OP No.1 is directed to pay balance amount of Rs.10996/- to the complainant. We further direct both the OPs, jointly and severally to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant, as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainant, due to non-resolving his grievance for a considerable period of time, along with Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. The OPs are further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of 45 days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the total amount of Rs.25,996/- (10996 + 15000) shall carry interest @6% simple per annum, from the date of this order, till its actual realization, and in that eventuality, interest on amount of Rs.10,996/- shall be solely borne by the OP No.1, whereas, interest on amount of Rs.15,000/- shall be borne by both the OPs severally and jointly, and the complainant shall also be at liberty to initiate proceedings u/s 25/27 of the Act, against the OPs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to record-room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission:

Dated:16.05.2022.

    

                                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)               

(Neelam)                    (Issam Singh Sagwal)                   President,

Member.                    (Member).                                     DCDRC, Kurukshetra.           
 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer