DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 20th day of April, 2023
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of filing 09/08/2021
CC/121/2021
Lini Joseph
D/o. Joseph, Rose Villa
Ummini Railway Colony
Kallekulangara P.O.
Akathethara, Palakkad – 678 009
(By Adv. M.J.Vince) - Complainant
Vs
1. Happy Easy Go
Plot No. 242,243, Phase 4
Gurugram, Haryana -122 015
Represented by its Manager
2. Travel Boutique Online,
Plot No. 728, Udyog Vihar
Phase 5, Gurgaon -122 016
(1st & 2nd opposite parties Ex-parte)
3. Director General of Civil Aviation
Arbindo Marg, Near Safdarjang Airport
New Delhi -110 003 - Opposite parties
(By Adv. P.M.Ramesan)
O R D E R
By Sri.Krishnankutty.N.K., Member.
1. Pleadings of the Complainant.
The complainant booked an air ticket for her journey from Delhi to Warsaw on 11/03/2020 in Lot Airlines through the first opposite party and the ticket was issued through the second opposite party. An amount of Rs.25,348/- was paid to the first opposite party towards the charges by using the credit card of her brother. The flight was cancelled due to Covid- 19 restrictions and the complainant got the journey rescheduled for 08/06/2020 by paying an additional amount of Rs. 10,892/- This flight was also cancelled due to Covid-19 restrictions. As the 1st opposite party failed to give any commitment regarding the date of next flight, the complainant demanded refund, which didn't happen inspite of phone calls and e-mails to the 1st & 2nd opposite parties.
Then she made a complaint to third opposite party ie. DGCA. They took up the matter with Lot Airlines and informed that the Airlines is yet to get the refund claim from the first opposite party. The legal notice issued by the complainant to the first opposite party got returned with endorsement "Ghar Chod Gaya".
Hence she has approached this Commission seeking a total compensation of Rs. 1,51,000/- including cost.
2. Notices were issued to opposite parties. First and second opposite parties didn't enter appearance and hence were set ex-parte. The third opposite party filed their version contenting that they are an unnecessary party to this complaint under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. However, they admitted the fact that they received a complaint from the complainant on 21/02/2021 against Lot Polish Airlines in their Public Grievance Portal regarding the non refund issue. The matter was immediately referred to the Airlines and got a confirmation from them for having refunded Rs. 25,477/- to the complainant by the second opposite party. Based on the details submitted by the Airlines regarding the refund, the complaint was closed at their end.
An interim application IA/63/22 filed by the opposite party, praying for deletion of their name from the array of the opposite parties was allowed by order dated 17/10/2022 as they are not discharging any functions as contemplated under Consumer Protection Act. Accordingly their name was removed from the party array.
3. The Complainant filed proof affidavit and marked documents Ext. A1 to A3 as evidence. Ext. A1 is the copy of the air ticket booked, and A2 is the copy of the legal notice issued by the complainant to 1st & 2nd opposite parties. A3 is the DGCA guidelines on facilities to be provided to passengers by airlines, due to denied boarding, cancellation of flights and delays in flights.
4. From the Ext. A1 it is clear that the complainant has paid Rs. 25,348/- for booking the ticket and Rs. 10,892/- while rescheduling the journey. As per the proof affidavit filed by the complainant, Rs. 26,631/- has been received as refund amount. Hence there is a shortfall of Rs. 9,609/-. In the absence of any counter from the opposite parties, we are not in a position to conclude whether the refund amount has been calculated according to the refund policy of the airlines and guide lines of DGCA. If the refund had been done as per rules, the opposite parties could have tried to convince the complainant atleast after the filing of this complaint or appeared before this Commission and participated in the proceedings and explained their position. Hence there is prima facie case of deficiency in service here.
Hence this Commission is left with the only option to order the refund of the balance amount arrived at as above.
5. In the above circumstances the complaint is partially allowed ordering the following.
- The 1st & 2nd opposite parties are directed to refund Rs. 9,609/- along with interest @10% per annum from 08/06/2020 till the date of payment.
- The opposite parties 1 & 2 are also directed to Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service &
- Rs 25,000/- as cost.
The opposite parties shall comply with the directions in this order within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which opposite party shall pay to the complainant Rs. 500/- per month or part thereof until the date of payment in full and final settlement of this order.
Pronounced in open court on this the 20th day of April, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
Appendix
Documents marked from the side of the Complainant.
Ext. A1: Copy of Air ticket along with the split up of charges.
Ext. A2: Copy of legal notice issued by the complainant to opposite parties 1 &
2 dated 28/07/2021.
Ext. A3: DGCA guidelines on facilities to be provided to passengers by airlines
due to denied boarding, cancellation of flights and delay in flights.
Documents marked from the side of opposite party: Nil
Witness examined: Nil
Cost: Rs. 25,000/-
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
