Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S.Panessar,President.
1. Dr. Kulwant Kaur complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that she is resident of 63, resident of 236, Medical Enclave, Amritsar and is suffering from disc problem and is wheel chair patient. On 30.7.2014 complainant booked for an air ticket for going abroad and return with the opposite party and paid Rs. 75711/- to the opposite party. As such the complainant becomes the consumer of the opposite party and falls under the definition of consumer. The departure schedule from Amritsar to Doha was 11.10.2014 and thereafter Doha to New York and then New York of Orlando by Qatar Airways and Jet Airways and return schedule was from Orlando to Washington on 15.3.2015 then Washington to Doha and then Doha to Amritsar on 16.3.2015 by Jet Blue Airways and Qatar Airways. Just before the departure an e-mail was received from the opposite party and new and updated flight schedule was given and a dispute regarding the return of the complainant as the schedule provided by the opposite party intimated that the flight from Orlando to Washington was start from 1405 hrs and reach at 1815 hrs at Washington DCA Airport. Thereafter the connecting flight was from Washington DC (IAD) Airport will start from 2120 p.m on 15.3.2015. It was also mentioned that the person boarding the flight will have to arrive 2 hrs prior to schedule departure time for domestic sector and 3 hrs prior to International sector. Thereafter the authorized person Dr. Ranbir Singh contacted the opposite party and there is unilateral change of route to Washington DCA , whereas the original booking was from Washington. Washington is one of the most busiest city of the World and there is distance between the two airports is 25 miles and it was impossible for a first time visitor to catch a connecting flight within 3 hrs from domestic Airport to International Airport alongwith luggage. Thereafter the husband of the complainant contacted opposite party to change schedule and fix the same as per original schedule. However, on the refusal of the opposite party, the complainant through her husband contacted the Qatar Airways directly and paid a sum of Rs. 5250/- for the new schedule given by Qatar Airways regarding the return of the complainant dated 12.3.2014. All the connecting flights were provided by Qatar Airways from the same Airport and the complainant need not to travel from one airport to other to catch connecting flights. As per the norms of Aviation department, when a person is going abroad, he has to be given the flights of International Airports and domestic airport flights should not be given and it is not required that first a passenger will go to domestic airport and then catch a connecting flight from International Airport. Opposite party in this way has caused not only the financial loss to the complainant but has also caused mental and physical harassment to the complainant. The complainant has sought for the following reliefs vide instant complaint:-
(i) Opposite party be directed to refund Rs. 5250/- which the complainant paid in excess for his change in schedule.
(ii) Opposite party be also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 50000/- and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 5500/ to the complainant.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 & 2 appeared and filed a joint written statement contesting the complaint of the complainant taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that no cause of action has arisen to the complainant to file the present complaint against the opposite party since there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party has an online travel portal by the name and style of www.goibibo.com (Website) offering complete travel solutions with its corporate office at Ibibo Group, 5th Floor, Good Earth City Centre, Sector 50, Gurgaon, Haryana -122018. The website is a leading business to consumer online travel aggregator providing bookings of flights (domestic and International) hotels, buses and holiday packages. The complainant availed the services of the opposite party through its website only to the extent of booking of tickets. The complainant had booked the round trip tickets and opted for several airlines to travel to Orlanhdo from Amritsar via Doha and selected her return routes from Amritsar to Orlando and Amritsar. The complainant herself selected the routes voluntarily for the journey to Orlando from Amritsar and back which she booked and accordingly her bookings were confirmed with the concerned airlines. She was given e-ticket by the opposite party on 30.7.2014 and later on her bookings were confirmed by way of e-ticket provided by Qatar Airways. The complainant was well aware of her route of journey from Amritsar to Orlando and the return journey. E-ticket provided by Qatar Airways reveal that the detailed description of the breakups in the journey and the name of airport6s were mentioned. Had there been any problem in respect to the airports, the complainant could have raised the issue and could have opted for change in the schedule/route of her journey well in advance. Infact the complainant opted to book her tickets with Qatar Airways for her journey from Amritsar (Sri Guru Ram Das Jee International Airport) to Doha (Hamad International Airport) on 11.10.2014. Further from Doha to New York (JFK Airport) she again booked tickets with Qatar Airways. From New York (JFK Airport) to Orlando (Orlando International Airport) she booked tickets with Jet Blue Airways. For her return journey the complainant booked tickets with Jet Blue Airways for 15.3.2015 from Orlando (Orlando International Airport) to Washington (Reagan National Airport) for further journey to Doha, the complainant booked tickets with Qatar Airways from Washington (Washington Dulles International Airport) to Doha (Hamad International Airport) and further the complainant booked the tickets with Qatar Airways for 16.3.2015 from Doha (Hamad International Airport) to Amritsar (Sri Guru Ram Dass Jee International Airport). Infact as per the e-ticket dated 30.7.2014 issued by Qatar Airways the departure time of Jet Blue Airways flight from Orlando International Airport was 4.05 p.m. and it was supposed to reach the Reagan National Airport at about 6.15 p.m and the linking flight Qatar Airways from Washington Dulles International Airport for Doha was scheduled to take off at 10.40p.m.. The Qatar Airways changed the timings of its flight from 10.40 p.m to 9.20 p.m. As soon as the opposite party came to know about the said changes, the same were informed to the complainant so that she may be able to do the needful to avoid any hassle. The said changes were entirely on the part of Qatar Airways and the opposite party has nothing to do with the same and the opposite party cannot intervene in the flight schedule of the concerned airlines company. As such there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party who has acted in accordance with the options given by the complainant, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed ; that present complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties ; that as per International flight booking terms of the opposite party the complainant is not entitled to refund of any amount or any compensation under the present circumstances. The copy of the terms and conditions is annexed and the relevant term and conditions are reproduced hereinunder:-
“Goibibo is not responsible for any schedule change by the airline after issuance of the ticket, but will inform you of the same is informed by the airlines. It is advisable to reconfirm your flight timings 24 hours prior to your flight departure. Goibibo can assist you with amendments to most bookings. In some cases though, you will need to contact the airline directly.”
That in view of the above since the change of timings of the flights were made by Qatar Airways and the opposite party has performed its duty by informing the complainant about the said changes in the timing of her flight immediately. As such under the present circumstances the present complaint is liable to be dismissed ; that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try and present complaint. The booking was done by the complainant online and the tickets were also sent by Qatar Airways and the opposite party, online. The said office of opposite parties being at Gurgaon, Harayana, the present complaint should have been filed before District Consumer Forum at Gurgaon, as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, facts narrated in the complaint have been specifically denied and a prayer for dismissal of complaint with cost has been made.
3. In his bid to prove the case Sh.:Pardeep Mahajan,Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex. C-9 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.Munish Menon,Adv.counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavits of Akshat Sunalit,Sr.Legal Manager Ex.OP1, terms and conditions Ex.OP2, air ticket Ex.OP3, air ticket dated 30.7.2014 Ex.OP4, mail dated 15.3.2015 Ex.OP5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite parties.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file as well a written synopsis of arguments submitted by both the parties.
6. Ld.counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that complainant had hired the services of opposite parties for payment , as such, she is the consumer of the opposite parties. It is the case of the complainant that on 30.7.2014, the complainant hired the services of the opposite party for going Abroad and return and paid Rs. 75711/- to the opposite party for purchasing the air tickets. The departure was scheduled on 11.10.2014 from Amritsar to Doha to New York and then New York to Orlando and the return was scheduled from Orlando to Washington on 15.3.2015 and thereafter from Washington to Doha and then Doha to Amritsar on 16.3.2015. The dispute arose between the parties , as just before the departure, the opposite party sent an email, wherein it was stated that in return schedule provided by the opposite party it was intimated that the flight from Orlando to Washington would start from 14.05 hrs and reach 18.14 hrs at Washington DCA Airport. Thereafter the connecting flight from Washington DC(IAD) Airport will start at 21.20 hrs on 15.3.2015 . It was further clearly mentioned that person boarding the flight will have to arrive 2 hrs prior to scheduled departure time for domestic sector and 3 hrs prior to the scheduled departure of International Sector. As per Ex.C-3 there was a time gap of 6 hrs 35 minutes in between two flights on 15.3.2015, but vide email referred above the time gap was reduced to 3 hrs 40 minutes. Thereafter the complainant through her husband requested the opposite party to look into the matter as the complainant was a wheel chair person which is clearly mentioned in Ex.C-3 and requested them that it was impossible for her to catch the above mentioned flight in the return trip and requested to reschedule the return trip. It is important to mention over here that there was a difference of 25 miles in between the two airports from where the connecting flight was to be caught. The complainant was a first time visitor and she being a wheel chaired person was not able to cope with the change in return schedule. Thereafter vide e-mail Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-8 requests were made to the opposite party to make some alternative arrangements of airflight but they did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant nor they tried to compensate or reschedule the flight of the complainant. Thereafter , after the refusal of the opposite party, the complainant through her husband contacted the Qatar Airways personally and after hearing the problems of the complainant, the Qatar Airways rescheduled the return flight and return schedule was fixed for 12.3.2015 and additional sum of Rs. 5250/- was changed by the Qatar Airways and the connecting flights were provided by Qatar Airways on the same Airport which resulted into the benefit of the complainant as the complainant was first time visitor and wheel chaired person. The very fact that the opposite party did not reschedule the return journey of the complainant as requested by her, as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Since there was time gap of 6 months in between departure and arrival of the complainant but the opposite party did not pay any heed to the inconvenience to be caused to the complainant by their act and conduct. It is requested that for negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant has been unnecessarily burdened with additional sum of Rs. 5250/- besides suffering mental pain, agony, harassment and inconvenience and as such the complainant is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 50000/- from the opposite party. It is further contended that the complainant has been able to prove her case through cogent evidence and it is , therefore, requested that complaint may be allowed accordingly.
7. But, however, from the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that the complainant had booked a round trip tickets and opted for several airlines to travel to Orlando from Amritsar via Doha and she on her own selected her return route from Amritsar to Orlando and back to Amritsar . When any person login to website of the opposite party and put his/her requirement for travelling, the online system automatically generate number of options available for the traveller . In the present case complainant herself selected the routes voluntarily for journey to Orlando from Amritsar and back and she booked her tickets accordingly and her bookings were confirmed by the concerned Airlines. She was given e-tickets by the opposite party on 30.7.2014 and later on her bookings were confirmed by way of e-tickets provided by Qatar Airways, copy whereof are Ex.C-2 & Ex.C-3. The allegations levelled by the complainant against the opposite parties in the present complaint are not proved on record. Because in this case there was no change in the schedule of journey of the complainant and only the flight timings were changed by Qatar Airlines. The complainant was well aware of her route of journey from Amritsar to Orlando and the return journey as well. Mere perusal of the e ticket Ex.C-3 dated 30.7.2014 by Qatar Airways will reveal that the detailed description of the breakups in the journey and the name of Airports were mentioned . Had there been any problem in respect to the airports, the complainant could have raised the issue and might have opted for change in the schedule/route of journey well in advance. Infact the complainant opted to book her tickets with Qatar Airways for her journey from Amritsar to Doha on 11.10.2014. Further from Doha to New York (JFK Airport) she again booked tickets with Qatar Airways. From New York (JFK Airport) to Orlando (Orlando International Airport) she booked tickets with Jet Blue Airways. For her return journey the complainant booked tickets with Jet Blue Airways for 15.3.2015 from Orlando (Orlando International Airport) to Washington (Reagan National Airport) for further journey to Doha, the complainant booked tickets with Qatar Airways from Washington (Washington Dulles International Airport) to Doha (Hamad International Airport) and further the complainant booked the tickets with Qatar Airways for 16.3.2015 from Doha (Hamad International Airport) to Amritsar (Sri Guru Ram Dass Jee International Airport). Infact as per the e-ticket dated 30.7.2014 issued by Qatar Airways the departure time of Jet Blue Airways flight from Orlando Internationjal Airport was 4.05 p.m. and it was supposed to reach the Reagan National Airport at about 6.15 p.m and the linking flight Qatar Airways from Washington Dulles International Airport for Doha was scheduled to take off at 10.40p.m.. The Qatar Airways changed the timings of its flight from 10.40 p.m to 9.20 p.m. As soon as the opposite party came to know about the said changes, the same were informed to the complainant so that she may be able to do the needful to avoid any hassle. The said changes were entirely on the part of Qatar Airways and the opposite party has nothing to do with the same . As a matter of fact the complainant could nurse a grudge, if any, against the Qatar Airways only. But , however, for the reasons best known to the complainant, the Qatar Airways has not been impleaded as party to the present complaint. As such the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party also.
8. From the appreciation of the evidence, it becomes evident that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Opposite parties have an online travel portal by the name and style of www.goibibo.com offering complete travel solutions. The website is a leading business to consumer online travel aggregator providing bookings of flights (domestic and International), hotels, buses and holiday packages. The opposite party does not own or operate any schedule commercial flight services and is merely acting as an online marketplace enabling customers to book flight tickets of various schedule commercial airlines through its booking portal. Opposite party not being any service provider cannot be held responsible for any act of omission or commission committed by Airlines. The copy of terms and conditions accounts for Ex.OP2 on record ,which govern the liability of the opposie party qua the complainant which reads as under:-
“Goibibo is not responsible for any schedule change by the airline after issuance of the ticket, but will inform you of the same is informed by the airlines. It is advisable to reconfirm your flight timings 24 hours prior to your flight departure”
9. In the case in hand it is none of the case of the complainant that opposite party did not intimate change in schedule of departure by the Qatar Airways. As such as per terms and conditions of the agreement, opposite party has discharged its obligation towards the complainant. The complainant has got the return journey changed and has to pay a sum of Rs. 5250/- , in addition & for that she cannot blame the opposite party. There is absolutely no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Instant complaint is nothing but an abuse of the process of court and therefore , instant complaint fails and is ordered to be dismissed accordingly. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
