Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/150/2021

Sant Lal Mehta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indigo Airlines - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

04 Sep 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FATEHABAD.

                                                      Complaint Case No.150 of 2021.                                                                Date of institution: 25.06.2021.                                                         Date of decision:04.09.2023.

Sant Lal Mehta son of Karam Chand Mehta resident of House No.290/09 near Radhey Sham Temple Tohana Tehsil & District Fatehabad .

                                                                        …Complainant.

                             Versus

1.Indigo Airlines 2.Spice Jet Airlines 3.Briliant Tour & Travel Gohana through its owner Sh.Rakesh Kumar 4.Sub Agent Sunil Kumar Saini, Common Service Centre, Bus Stand Road, Tohana District Fatehabad.

                                                                    ...Opposite parties.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

Present:         Complainant in person.                                                                                         Sh.C.D.Singla, Advocate for Op No.1.                                                                   Ops No.2 to 4 are exparte vide orders dated 08.05.2023 &                                         20.08.2021 respectively.                  

CORAM:        SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT.                             SMT.HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER.                  SH.K.S.NIRANIA, MEMBER.    

ORDER

SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT

                    The facts of the present case are that on 20.03.2020, the complainant booked four seats of Op No.2 in the evening flight (5.35 pm) for visiting Patna from Delhi in connection with some religious journey under booking ID No.EMT71384156 and further the complainant also booked return ticket from Patna to Delhi for 24.03.2020 with Op No.1 through Ops No.3 & 4; that on 19.03.2020, the Centre Government imposed lockdown with a advisory to the old age persons for not travelling anywhere; that the complainant intimated the same to the Ops No.1 & 2 with a request to extend the same for 13.09.2020 instead of 24.03.2020 but it was intimated to him that the tickets have already been cancelled on 07.09.2020; that thereafter, the deposited amount was not refunded to him despite several requests and correspondence dated 22.04.2021; that the Ops No.3 & 4 intimated the complainant that an amount of Rs.2040 and Rs.1050/- has been refunded; that the complainant requested the Ops on 28.04.2021 and demanded the details of refunded amount but to no avail; that the government had framed a rule for the 100 % refund of the amount on account of cancellation of flights but despite that he has been paid meager amount out of the full deposited amount. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C9.

2.                           On notice, Ops No.1, 3 & 4 appeared and filed their separate replies whereas Op No.2 did not come present despite sending notice through registered post, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 20.08.2021. OP No.1 in its reply has submitted that the complainant has not mentioned the essential booking details; that this Hon’ble Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint; that the complainant has not booked any flight for travel at 1735 hours on 02.03.2020 from Delhi to Patna and further he has never sent any email; that without any essential details such as PNR Number and name of passengers, the replying Op is unable to verify the claim of the complainant; that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of replying Op. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                          Ops No.3 & 4 filed their joint reply wherein several preliminary objections such as cause of action, maintainability, locus standi as well as concealment of material facts have been taken. It is further submitted that replying Ops have not done any fraud to the complainant rather the amount so received from the Ops No.1 & 2 has already been refunded to the complainant; that all the details and information are sent to the phone number and email address of the  customer and he/she himself makes correspondence on customer care; that the complainant himself had sent the cancellation request, therefore, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Other contentions have also been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In the end, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.  

4.                          In evidence, the Op No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure RW1/1 to Annexure RW1/12 whereas no evidence has been led on behalf of Ops No.3 & 4. Though during the proceedings of the complainant, none had appeared on behalf of Ops No.3 & 4, therefore, these Ops were proceeded against exparte vide order dated  08.05.2023.

5.                          The fact regarding booking of 4 seats by the complainant with Op No.1 & 2 as well as its confirmation to travel from Delhi to Patna and further from Patna to Delhi (Annexure C1 & Annexure C7) for 20.03.2020 and 24.03.3020 is not disputed. It is also not disputed that there was complete lock down in India due to covid-19 during March, 2020. The complainant has come with the plea that due to advisory of Centre Government specially for old age persons for not travelling during the covid period, he made a request (Annexure C2) to the Ops No.1 & 2 either to cancel the booked tickets as well as for refunding the amount so deposited by him or to extend the period for 13.09.2020 but despite specific directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as Central Government for refunding the full amount of the cancelled flights, the Ops No.1 & 2 only refunded Rs.2040/- and Rs.1050/- out of the total deposited amount. The relevant table regarding deduction of the amount is as under:

Fare Rules	Lite Fare (inclusive of GST)	Regular Fare (inclusive of GST)	Flexible Fare (inclusive of GST)
Cancellation fee	0-3 (days left for departure) INR 3500 or Airfare charges plus Fare difference will be charged (whichever is lower). Cancellation fee will depend upon the time of Cancellation. Know more 4 days and above INR 3000 or Airfare charges Plus Fare difference will be charged (whichever is lower). Cancellation fee will depend upon the time of cancellation. Know more.	0-3 (days left for departure) INR 3500 or Airfare charges plus Fare difference will be charged (whichever is lower). Cancellation fee will depend upon the time of Cancellation. Know more 4 days and above INR 3000 or Airfare charges Plus Fare difference will be charged (whichever is lower). Cancellation fee will depend upon the time of cancellation. Know more.	0-3 (days left for departure) INR 3500 or Airfare charges plus Fare difference will be charged (whichever is lower). Cancellation fee will depend upon the time of Cancellation. Know more 4 days and above INR 3000 or Airfare charges Plus Fare difference will be charged (whichever is lower). Cancellation fee will depend upon the time of cancellation. Know more.

 

6.                Hon’ble Apex Court on 01.10.2020 while deciding the WP(C) D.No.10966 of 2020 etc. titled as Pravasi Legal Cell & Ors. Versus Union of India & Ors. has held  that there was an issue of air fare during the lockdown period, when domestic and international flights operation was suspended. The Ministry of Civl Aviation (MOCA) while acknowledging the unusual situation that has arise due to lockdown imposed to contain further spread of Covid-19 and its consequential effect on the air passengers and airlines, by examining the grievances received from various quarters, issued an advisory to all stake holders in civil aviation sector the shape of office Memorandum dated 16^th April, 2020. The advisory issued read as under:

           “3. … … … …

1. If a passenger has booked a ticket during first lockdown period (from 25^th of March to 14 of April, 2020) and the airline has received payment for booking of the air ticket during the first lock down period for travel during the same period, for both domestic and international air travel and refund is sought by the passenger against that booking being cancelled, the airline shall refund the full amount collected without levy of cancellation charges. The refund shall be made within a period of three weeks from the request of cancellation.

Undisputedly, the complainant had to travel by air on 20.03.2020 at 1735 hours from Delhi to Patna and further to return from Patna to Delhi at 1735 hours on 24.03.2020 with Ops No.1 & 2 and when the Covid situation broke out during this tenure, the complainant made a written request Annexure C2 for cancellation the booked tickets as well as for refunding the amount so deposited by him.  Hon’ble Apex Court in the above mentioned case titled as Pravasi Legal Cell & Ors. Versus Union of India & Ors. (supra) had specifically instructed the airlines companies for refunding the full amount of cancelled flights/tickets within a period of three weeks from the date of cancellation but it is not understandable as to why the Ops No.1 & 2 returned the meager amount of Rs.1050/- and Rs.2040/- instead of refunding the full amount of Rs.9804/- and Rs.9720/- (as mentioned in Annexure C1 and Annexure C6). Strange enough that the Op No.2 did not bother to appear before this Commission and had chosen to remain exparte and even the Op no.1 has also failed to explain as to on what reasons the full amount was not refunded despite specific directions and instructions issued by the concerned aviation department, therefore, we have no hitch to reach at a conclusion that the Ops No.1 & 2 only are deficient in providing service to the complainant besides indulging in unfair trade practice.

7.                          Thus as a sequel of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted with costs. We direct the Op No.1/Indigo Airlines to refund the balance amount of Rs.7680/- ( Rs.9720 – Rs.2040 =7680) and Op No.2/Spicejet Airlines  is also directed to refund Rs.8754/- (Rs.9804 – Rs.1050= Rs.8754/-) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint till its realization within 45 days from today.  Both Ops No.1 & 2 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- in lump sum to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment as well as for cost of litigation. The liability for making the payment of Rs.11,000/- would be joint and several. The complaint against Ops No.3 & 4 stands dismissed. The compliance of the order would be made within a period of 45 days, failing which the awarded amount would carry 9 % interest from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.   

8.                          In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission.                                                                 Dated: 04.09.2023

                                                                                                        

          (K.S.Nirania)                         (Harisha Mehta)                      (Rajbir Singh)                              Member                                  Member                                         President