Haryana

Panchkula

CC/176/2014

SAROJ SAPRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

INTER-CONTINENTAL TOURS&TRAVELS. - Opp.Party(s)

P.M.P SINGH

24 Feb 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

                                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	174 of 2014
Date of Institution	:	09.09.2014
Date of Decision	:	24.02.2015

 

R.K.Sapra, aged 52 years, S/o Sh.Ram Lal Sapra, R/o H.No.733, Sector-11, Panchkula.

                                                                                                            ….Complainant

Versus

 

1.         Inter-Continental Tours & Travels, SCO No.204, Sector-14, Top Floor, Panchkula.

2.         Kingfisher Airlines Ltd., the UB Group, Level 12, UB Tower, UB City No.24, Vittalmalya Road, Bangalore-560001.

                                                                                                            ….Opposite Parties

 

C.C.No.175 of 2014

 

C.R.Jotriwal, aged 59 years, S/o Sh.Hari Ram, R/o H.No.626, Sector-6, Panchkula.

                                                                                                            ….Complainant

Versus

1.         Inter-Continental Tours & Travels, SCO No.204, Sector-14, Top Floor, Panchkula.

2.         Kingfisher Airlines Ltd., the UB Group, Level 12, UB Tower, UB City No.24, Vittalmalya Road, Bangalore-560001.

                                                                                                          ….Opposite Parties

 

C.C.No.176 of 2014

 

Saroj Sapra, aged 56 years, W/o Sh.R.K.Sapra, R/o H.No.733, Sector-11, Panchkula.

                                                                                                            ….Complainant

Versus

1.         Inter-Continental Tours & Travels, SCO No.204, Sector-14, Top Floor, Panchkula.

2.         Kingfisher Airlines Ltd., the UB Group, Level 12, UB Tower, UB City No.24, Vittalmalya Road, Bangalore-560001.

                                                                                                          ….Opposite Parties

 

C.C.No.177 of 2014

 

Mrs.Nirmal Jotriwal, aged 52 years, W/o Sh.C.R.Jotriwal, R/o H.No.626, Sector-6, Panchkula.

                                                                                                            ….Complainant

Versus

1.         Inter-Continental Tours & Travels, SCO No.204, Sector-14, Top Floor, Panchkula.

2.         Kingfisher Airlines Ltd., the UB Group, Level 12, UB Tower, UB City No.24, Vittalmalya Road, Bangalore-560001.

                                                                                                          ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:                    Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

                  Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

 

For the Parties:         Mr.P.M.P.Singh, Adv., for the complainants. 

Mr.Piyush Mittal, Adv., for the Op No.1.

OP No.2 already ex-parte.

 

ORDER

(Anita Kapoor, Member)

 

1. The commonality of factual averments in these four complaints, persuades us to record a common judgment to avoid any conflicting judgment. The variation therein is that complaint No.174 has been filed by Sh. R.K.Sapra S/o Sh.Ram Lal Sapra; complaint No.175 has been filed by Sh. C.R.Jotriwal S/o Sh. Hari Ram; complaint No.176 has been filed by Smt.Saroj Sapra W/o Sh.R.K.Sapra and complaint No.177 has been filed by Smt.Nirmal Jotriwal W/o Sh.C.R.Jotriwal. The four complaints are hereby consolidated and taken up for joint disposal.
2. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being extracted from the case titled as R.K.Sapra vs. Inter-Continental Tours & Travels. The complainants booked four Air tickets (Annexure C-1) for travel from Jabalpur to New Delhi through OP No.1 for flight Kingfisher flight No.IT-4376 for 18.06.2012. On 18.06.2012, the complainants reached at Jabalpur Airport at 8:30 hrs for taking the flight. They contacted the official of Op No.2 about the board passed for Kingfisher flight No.IT-4376 and got surprised to know that the flight had left at 8:30 hrs whereas the flight had to depart at 9:40 hrs. The complainants asked the Op No.2 to make some alternative arrangement for going to Delhi but it was refused and said that they contacted the Op No.1 to inform the complainants or provide their telephone numbers but the Op No.1 neither informed the complainants nor provided their telephone numbers to the official of Op No.2. The complainants did not get information about the change in schedule of flight No.IT-4376 either from Op No.1 or Op No.2 and they missed the flight. After many requests for alternative arrangement, the Op No.2 had given boarding passes of Air-connect (Annexure C-2) from Jabalpur to Bhopal departing at 9:50 hrs. From Bhopal, the complainants hired the taxi to reach Indore and paid Rs.3900/- (Annexure C-3). From Indore, the complainants again booked the air tickets of Jet Connect flight No.(9W) 7142 to reach Delhi from Indore for a sum of Rs.4860 (Annexure C-4).  Due to act and conduct of the Ops, the complainants had invested an extra Rs.8760/- for reaching back to Delhi. Hence, this complaint.
3. The Op No.1 appeared before this Forum and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that on 21.05.2012, the complainant alongwith three persons namely (i) Mr.C.R.Jotriwal (ii) Mrs. Nirmal Jotriwal and (iii) Mrs. Saroj Sapra got air tickets booked for travelling from Jabalpur to New Delhi in Kingfisher flight No.IT-4376 scheduled for 18.06.2012 at 9:40 hrs. It is submitted that the Op No.1 booked the air tickets as per companions at the time of booking. After booking the tickets, the Op No.1 provided booking receipt dated 21.05.2012 to the complainant and his companions. It is submitted that the Op No.1 had no knowledge that the flight was rescheduled by the Op No.2 and the complainant and his companions missed their flight due to rescheduling of flight by the Op No.2. It is submitted that the Op No.2 never contacted the Op No.1 at any point of time. It is submitted that the Op No.2 never contacted the Op No.1 to provide phone number of complainant or to further communicate the complainant about the rescheduling of the Kingfisher flight No.IT-4376 dated 18.06.2012 from 9:40 hrs to 8:30 hrs. It is submitted that the air tickets were booked by the Op No.1 as per the information provided at the time of booking. It is submitted that if the complainant and his companions have provided any incorrect information at the time of booking then the Op No.1 was not responsible for the same. It is submitted that the Op No.1 was nowhere concerned with the scheduling and rescheduling of the flights by the Op No.2 or any other airlines. It is submitted that the Op No.2 is solely responsible for rescheduling of their flight No.IT-4376 dated 18.06.2012 from 9:40 hrs to 8:30 hrs and therefore, it was the responsibility of the Op No.2 to inform the complainant and his companions about the reschedule. It is submitted that the complaint of the complainant is not within the limitation period as prescribed by the law. Thus, there is no deficiency in service and untrade practice on the part of OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. In so far as OP No.2 is concerned, repeated attempts for made to effect service upon it. Ex-parte proceedings were ultimately ordered against it as it did not enter appearance even after a notice had been sent to it by Registered Post and at the correct address and further it had not been received, served or unserved within the period of 30 days. None entered appearance on its behalf even thereafter till the time this judgment is under print.
5. Affidavit Annexure-C-A and documentation Annexure C-1 to C-6 were tendered into evidence on behalf of the complainant; while affidavit Annexure R1/A was tendered into evidence on behalf of OP No.1.
6. We have given our careful thought to the material available on the file in its relatability to the presentation made during the course of hearing.
7. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of OP No.1 argued, at the very out-set, that the complaints are time-barred as having been filed after a period of two years from the date of accrual of cause of action was over. Reliance, in support of the plea for rejection of the complaints as time-barred was placed upon 2009(2)RCR(Civil)628 (State Bank of India Vs. M/s B.S. Agricultural Industries), 2012(3) CPR (NC) 623 (Sebastian M.D. Vs. M.J. Devadas), 2012(4)CPJ (NC) 343 (Ambe Rice Mill Kaithal Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and another), 2010(2) CPJ 174 (Haryana Urban Development Authority and another Vs. Rajinder Malik) and 2002(3)CPJ(NC)322 (S.A. Raja Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and others).
8. The plea was contested by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant by arguing that the initially filed complaint (on behalf of all the four complainants) was allowed by this forum to be dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to file a fresh one before the competent authority. That being so, the argument proceeded, the bar of limitation does not at all apply. Reliance can be held on the case titled Lucky Mittal and other versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. in revision petition No.4030 of 2012 decided on 23.08.2013 by the Hon’ble National Commission.
9. There is no controversy in respect of the factual averment that a common complaint had been earlier filed on behalf of all the four complainants which was allowed by this forum to be withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh one before the appropriate authority. The filing of four independent complaints by the complainants in the earlier complaint in the given circumstances of the case saves limitation for them and the plea with regard to the applicability of the limitation is denuded of merit. The judicial pronouncements relied upon by the OP No.1 are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In SBI’s case (supra), the complaint had been filed after a gap of three years. In Sebastian M.D.’s case (supra) too, a case had been filed long after the period of limitation was over. In Ambe Rice Mill’s case (supra), the cause of action had arisen on 23.02.2005; while the complaint was filed in the year 2010. A plea raised that the period of limitation stood extended by serving a legal notice or by making a representation was negatived. In the other two cases as well, the complaints had been filed after limitation was over.
10. We have no manner of reservation in agreeing with OP No.1 that it cannot be held accountable for the change in the flight schedule which had been undertaken, to the detriment of the complainants, by OP No.2 at its own level and without forwarding any information in the relevant behalf either to OP No.1 or the complainants themselves. That being so, no accountability for the alleged deficiency in service can be fastened upon OP No.1.
11. The entire accountability in the causing of harassment, economic burden and mental agony to the complainants has to be held to be that of OP No.2. If OP No.2 had to make any change in the flight schedule, particularly by advancing it, it was incumbent upon it to either inform the complainant themselves or to inform the travel agent i.e. OP No.1 for forwarding the information to them. For want of any communication about the change in the flight schedule, the complainants were justified in reaching the airport at the time indicated and they are further justified in seeking to claim compensation from OP No.2 for whatever economic and physical burden they had to undergo due to the change in schedule. We are fully justified in holding that view because OP No.2 has not opted to enter appearance and to contest the claim raised by the complainants herein. The present is obviously a case wherein the averments made by the complainants are supported by an affidavit and other documentation available on the file; while there is no rebuttal of the factual accuracy thereof on behalf of OP No.2.
12. We would, accordingly, allow the complaints and hold that: -

      a)         OP No.2 shall pay to S/Shri R.K. Sapra, Saroj Sapra, Nirmal Jotriwal and C.R. Jotriwal a sum of Rs.8760/-and Rs.4860/- respectively (this amount shall be payable jointly to the husband wife team of R.K. Sapra and Saroj Sapra as also C.R. Jotriwal and Nirmal Jotriwal) for the amount spent by them to reach Delhi).

      b)         OP No.2 shall pay sum of Rs.50,000/- to each complainant (irrespective of their relationship inter-se) for the mental agony and harassment caused to them.

      c)         The amount under item (a) and (b) would be payable with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of payment till the payment thereof to them.

                        d)         OP No.2 shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to each complainant as the cost of litigation.                       

13. The OP No.2 shall comply with this order within a period of one month from the date its communication to it comes about.      A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
14. A copy of this order (recorded in CC/174/2014) shall be placed on the connected files bearing No.CC/175/2014, CC/176/2014 and CC/177/2014.

 

 

Announced

24.02.2015                            ANITA KAPOOR                             DHARAM PAL

                                                MEMBER                                          PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

     

                                         

                                                                        ANITA KAPOOR

                                                            MEMBER

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.         

                                                                                               

Consumer Complaint No	:	176 of 2014
Date of Institution	:	09.09.2014
Date of Decision	:	24.02.2015

Saroj Sapra, aged 56 years, W/o Sh.R.K.Sapra, R/o H.No.733, Sector-11, Panchkula.

                                                                                                            ….Complainant

Versus

1.         Inter-Continental Tours & Travels, SCO No.204, Sector-14, Top Floor, Panchkula.

2.         Kingfisher Airlines Ltd., the UB Group, Level 12, UB Tower, UB City No.24, Vittalmalya Road, Bangalore-560001.

                                                                                                          ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:                    Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

                  Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

 

For the Parties:         Mr.P.M.P.Singh, Adv., for the complainants. 

Mr.Piyush Mittal, Adv., for the Op No.1.

OP No.2 already ex-parte.             

ORDER

(Anita Kapoor, Member) 

1.                  For the reasons recorded above in the order of even date passed by this Forum in complaint case No.174 of 2014 tilted as R.L.Sapra vs. Inter-Continental Tours, this compliant is also allowed. A copy of that order is placed on the record, which shall be deemed to be a part of this order.

2.                  A certified copy of this order be sent to the ­parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

24.02.2015                ANITA KAPOOR                             DHARAM PAL

                                    MEMBER                                          PRESIDENT