Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/118/2022

TATA SIA AIRLINES LIMITED - Complainant(s)

Versus

HARSHEEN SETHI D/O AMRITPAL SINGH SETHI - Opp.Party(s)

GURSHER BHANDAL

24 Jul 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

[ADDITIONAL BENCH]

============

Appeal No	:	A/118/2022
Date  of  Institution	:	29/08/2022
Date   of   Decision	:	24/07/2023

 

 

 

 

 

 

TATA SIA Airlines Limited, having its Regd. Office at Jeevan Bharti, Tower-I, 10^th Floor 124, Connaught Circus, New Delhi – 110001.

…. Appellant

 

V E R S U S

 

1.   Ms. Harsheen Sethi daughter of Amritpal Singh Sethi, Resident of Plot No. 111, Indl. Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh – 160002.

 

2.   Ease My Trip, through its MD/ Director/ Manager, having its Regd. Office at Building No.223, Patparganj Industrial Area, New Delhi – 110092.

 

…… Respondents

 

BEFORE:   MRS. PADMA PANDEY       PRESIDING MEMBER

          PREETINDER SINGH        MEMBER

 

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. Gursher Singh Bhandal, Advocate for Appellant.
		Sh. Manoj Vashishta, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
		Sh. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate Proxy for Sh. Mohit Garg, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

 

PER PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.12.2021, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it partly allowed the Consumer Complaint bearing no.CC/537/2020, in the following terms:-

“11. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under:-

 

1. to refund the amount of ₹4,731/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% per annum w.e.f. the date of travel i.e. 11.7.2020 till realization.

 

2. to pay an amount of ₹7,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her;

 

3. to pay ₹5,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

 

12.  This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they 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.”

 

2.      For the convenience, the parties are being referred to, in the instant Appeal, as position held in Consumer Complaint before the Ld. Lower Commission.

 

3.      Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was the case of the Complainant that on 07.07.2020, she booked one way ticket from Opposite Parties for travel from Hyderabad to Chandigarh via Delhi scheduled for 11.07.2020 and paid consideration of ₹7,336/- and Opposite Party No.1 (Ease My Trip) confirmed the booking. On 10.07.2020, Opposite Parties informed the complainant that due to commercial issues, flight from Delhi to Chandigarh was rescheduled for 12.07.2020 at same time. The Opposite Parties informed the complainant that lounge at Delhi was functional at Hyderabad airport counter upon enquiry and baggage would be transferred automatically.  The Opposite Parties gave option to the complainant to cancel the second part i.e. New Delhi-Chandigarh flight and take refund.  It was averred, when the complainant reached New Delhi, she came to know that the lounge was un-operational. The officials of Opposite Party No.2 (Air Vistara) informed the complainant to collect the baggage and wait on three seat chair and that all lounges were closed due to COVID-19 and she was not even allowed to leave the airport.  In such circumstances, the complainant cancelled the second part of journey i.e. Delhi-Chandigarh and applied for refund at the purchase counter. The complainant after much efforts purchased ticket of Air India flight from Delhi to Chandigarh and incurred ₹4,731/- for the same. Thereafter, a lot emails were exchanged between the complainant and Opposite Parties with regard to refund and ultimately Opposite Party No.1 refunded the amount of ₹807/- and deducted the amount of ₹6,260/- on 29.10.2020.  Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

4.      Upon notice, the Opposite Party No.1/ Respondent No.2 resisted the consumer complaint, inter alia, pleading that it is merely a facilitator for booking the confirmed air tickets/hotel bookings on behalf of its customers with the concerned service providers.  The facts with regard to booking and rescheduling of flight have been admitted. It was submitted that complainant/ Respondent No.1 had partially used the ticket for Hyderabad-Delhi sector, therefore, as per applicable cancellation charges and taxes with respect to the amount as confirmed by Opposite Party No.2/Appellant, complainant/ Respondent No.1 was refunded the correct amount. On these lines, the cause was sought to be defended and a prayer for dismissal of the Complaint was made.

 

5.      Opposite Party No.2/Appellant in its written version admitted that the complainant/ Respondent No.1 booked the air ticket for Hyderabad to Delhi and from Delhi to Chandigarh and that the flight from Delhi to Chandigarh got rescheduled for 12.07.2020 which was duly intimated to the complainant/Respondent No.1. Opposite Party No.2/ Appellant submitted that it gave option to the complainant/ Respondent No.1 for refund of flight for Delhi-Chandigarh. It was asserted that lounge facilities at the airports were not operational due to COVID-19 pandemic. Any refund processed by Airline (Opposite Party No.2) had to be routed through Travel Agent (Opposite Party No.1) and Opposite Party No.2 duly refunded the amount to Opposite Party No.1.  Pleading that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.2 prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint. 

 

6.      On appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence adduced on record, Ld. Lower Commission partly allowed the consumer Complaint of the Respondent No.1/Complainant, as noticed in the opening para of this order.    

 

7.      Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Opposite Party No.2.

 

8.      We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, along with the written submissions advanced, with utmost care and circumspection.

 

9.      The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Ld. Lower Commission has rightly passed the impugned order by appreciating the entire material placed before it. 

 

10.      After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant Appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
11.      It is the case of the Appellant/ Opposite Party No.2 that the Ld. Lower Commission while passing the impugned order has failed to appreciate the documentary evidence available on record, which resulted into perverse finding. It has come on record that the only point for consideration before the Ld. Lower Commission was with regard to deduction of ₹6,260/- made by the OPs from the total amount of ₹7,336/- towards the unperformed journey of the complainant. Learned Counsel for the Appellant/ Opposite Party No.2 argued that the Ld. Lower Commission while allowing the Consumer Complaint ignored the fact that the lounge facilities at the airports were not operational due to COVID-19 pandemic which were beyond the control of the Appellant, for which the Appellant could not be held liable. However, we do not find any merit in this argument. It was the case of the Complainant/ Respondent No.1 that the journey for the Delhi-Chandigarh sector, which was rescheduled to 12.07.2020 instead of 11.07.2020 at the last moment, was not performed by her as the lounge at the airport was not operational and she could not have waited on the three seat chair till next day as there was no flight of Appellant/OP-2. Pertinently, there was nothing on record to show that the complainant was informed in advance about the non-operational lounge facilities at the airports due to COVID-19 pandemic. The Ld. Lower Commission has, therefore, rightly held that the Complainant/Respondent No.1 was well within her rights not to wait at the airport whole night and booked flight from Delhi to Chandigarh on 11.07.2020 itself.  Be that as it may, it was incumbent upon the Opposite Parties to initiate the refund of the proportionate fare for Delhi-Chandigarh sector to the complainant/ Respondent No.1, without deducting any amount, which they did not do and refunded the amount of ₹807/- only that too after protracted correspondence in the shape of emails (C-5 to C-39). Record shows, the complainant had paid an amount of ₹7,336/- to the Opposite Parties for journey from Hyderabad to Delhi and Delhi to Chandigarh, but the Opposite Parties never placed on record any document to show the proportionate fare for Delhi to Chandigarh sector. In this backdrop, the Ld. Lower Commission has rightly held that it was due to the act of the Opposite Parties that the Complainant/ Respondent No.1 was left in lurch and she had to book another flight at the nick of time which must have cost her expensive also. Hence, we are of the considered view that no case is therefore made for any interference in the findings recorded qua this issue by the Ld. Lower Commission. 

 

12.      No other point was urged, by the Ld. Counsel for the parties.

 

13.      It is demonstrable from a reading of the impugned Order of the Ld. Lower Commission that it is certainly not an order passed without reasons or without applying the judicious mind. The facts and circumstances of the case have been gone into, weighed and considered, and due analysis of the same has been made. It also does not appear to be an order passed without taking into account the available evidence.

 

14.      In the wake of the position, as sketched out above, we are dissuaded to interfere with the impugned order rendered by the Ld. Lower Commission. The appeal being bereft of merit is accordingly dismissed and the order of the Ld. Lower Commission is upheld.

 

15.      The pending application(s), if any, stand disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order.

 

16.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

 

17.      The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

24^th July, 2023                                

Sd/-

                                  (PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

“Dutt”