Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/108/2024

PRABHJIT SINGH GILL - Complainant(s)

Versus

INTERGLOBE AVIATION - Opp.Party(s)

AJAY SHANKER, KARAN SINGH AND MAHESH RANA

15 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/108/2024
Date of Institution	:	23.2.2024
Date of Decision	:	15/10/2024

 

1. Prabhjit Singh Gill son of Sh. Mehtab Singh Gill,

2. Sukhmani Kaur Gill wife of Sh. Prabhjit Singh Gill son of Mehtab Singh Gill,

3. Samarbir Singh Gill (Minor) son of Sh. Prabhjit Singh Gill, through his Natural Guardian and Mother (Sukhmani Kaur Gill - Complainant No. 2)

All residents of House No. 141, Sector 9-B, Chandigarh.

 

Complainants

versus

 

1.   InterGlobe Aviation (Indigo) through its Authorised Representative having its Registered Office at Upper Ground Floor, Thapar House, Gate No.2, Western Wing, 124 Janpath, New Delhi, 11000;

Having its Corporate Office at Third Floor, Emaar Capital Tower 2, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Gurugram, Haryana, 122002.

2.   MakeMyTrip Private Limited, through its Authorised Representative, having its head office at DLF Building No. 5, Tower-B, Gurugram, Haryana, 122002.

Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Ajay Shankar & Sh. Saurav Dogra, Advocate for complainant.
	:	Sh. Shrey Goel, Advocate for OP No.1
	:	Sh. Gaurav Deep Goel, Advocate for OP No.2.

Per surjeet kaur, Member

     Briefly stated the Complainant No. 1 booked his flight tickets for himself, and Complainant no. 2 and 3 on 14.01.2024 for his travel schedule from Thiruvanathapuram to Chandigarh on 16.01.2024. As per the booked flight schedule, there was a layover at Mumbai Airport (BOM) for 2 hours, and thereafter, the flight was to resume to Chandigarh. The total amount paid by the Complainant no. 1 for himself and Complainant no. 2 and 3 (being family members) was 74,499/-. A confirmation of the travel details for the same was received by the Complainant No. 1 on 14.01.2024 through Opposite Party no.2. However, the Complainant no. 1 got an intimation through Opposite Party no. 1 that his flight was rescheduled for 17.01.2024 due to bad weather. However, when the Complainants arrived at the Mumbai Airport on 17.01.2024 to complete the boarding formalities which were required for their travel, the Complainants were issued three Boarding Passes for seat number(s): 20D, 20E and 20F on 17.01.2024, by Opposite Party no. 1. Thereafter, the Complainants proceeded towards Gate No. 27 of the Mumbai Airport (Terminal 1) to board their above mentioned Flight No. 6E5178 and get to their designated seats, as allotted by Opposite Party no. 1 to the Complainants. On boarding Flight No. 6E5178 on the aircraft, owned and operated by Opposite Party no. 1, to their utter shock they found that the above-mentioned Seats 20D, 20E and 20F on Flight No. 6E5178 were already allotted and occupied by some other passengers. The Complainants were dismayed by the said fact and on further enquiry by asking the passengers which were already seated on Seats 20D, 20E, 20F and after reporting the same to Cabin Crew of Opposite Party no. 1, the Complainant no. 1 learnt that the same Seats 20D, 20E, 20F which were allotted to the Complainants, were in fact already allotted to the other passengers who were now its occupants. In fact, Opposite Party no. 1 had billed six customers for the same three seats twice as a result of which  the complainants were shifted to random seats, away from each other, which caused immense harassment, frustration and mental agony to the Complainants. The complainant sent a Legal Notice to the Opposite Parties through their Counsel on dated 25.01.2024 but nothing fruitful came out. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.

2. The Opposite Parties NO.1  in its reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that although the Complainants were booked to travel on the reserved route on 16.01.2024, however, due to unforeseen circumstances at Delhi, the incoming IndiGo Flight to Trivandrum got delayed and after due confirmation the Complainants were re-scheduled to travel on 17.01.2024. It is denied that the Complainants paid a total sum of INR 74,499/-. In fact the Answering OP received a total sum of Rs.73,572/-  out of which a sum of INR 1800/- was duly refunded to the Complainants against the payment made for pre-assigned seat fee. It is vehemently  denied that the allotted seats were allotted and occupied by other passengers. However, due to an unforeseen technical error in the software, the seat status was not updated and the Mumbai Team allotted different seats to the Complainants, other than the ones reserved earlier, on IndiGo Flight 6E-5178, as the seats originally reserved for the Complainants were allotted to some other passengers, due to the above mentioned technical glitch. However, the Complainants successfully travelled to their destination, i.e. Chandigarh. Denying any deficiency on its part all other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
3. OP No.2 in it reply stated that it only acts as a facilitator/intermediary and being the facilitator between the concerned service provider and the intended travellers is under the obligation to provide the confirmed booking/tickets to its customers. Once the tickets are confirmed by the concerned service provider in the present case, the same are shared with the intended traveller/customer. It is averred that once the confirmed ticket is issued to the customer, the answering OP is discharged from its obligations with regard to the aforesaid booking. Further, according to the User Agreement which is duly consented to and agreed by the Complainants before making the said confirmed bookings, the answering opposite party merely act as a facilitator for booking of services from the concerned service provider and are not attributable any liability for any aspect of the standards of service provided by the concerned service provider. Denying any service on its part a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4. No rejoinder filed.
5. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
7. The grouse of the complainants through the present complaint is that while flying from Mumbai to Chandigarh the complainants could not travel on the seats allotted to them despite having proper boarding passes with them. On boarding the flight only the complainants No.1&2 alongwith their minor child  came to know that in fact the seats allotted to them were occupied by some other passengers as they were also having boarding passes for the same seats. It is admitted fact that the complainants could travel on the same flight but on different seats, which caused a lot of harassment and mental agony to them. The complainants in order to get their grievance redressed sent legal notice to the OPs  but nothing was done hence, the instant complaint has been filed.
8. The stand taken by OP No.1 is that due to some technical glitch  the said mistake has occurred and  realizing their fault OP No.1 has refunded Rs.1800/- which they charged for pre-assigned seats fee from the complainants. Thus there is no deficiency on their part.
9. After going through the documents on record, it is abundantly clear that the OP No.1 admitted its fault and also proved on record that the OPs did not reply to the  legal notice of the complainant for redressal of this petty issue rather forced the complainants to come before this Commission  and thereby imposed present unnecessary litigation upon them. Undoubtedly the pre-assigned seats fee has been refunded to the complainants after filing of the present complaint.   
10. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that due to the act of omission of the OP No.1 the complainants have to face embarrassing situation while travelling in the flight of OP No.1 airlines. In our opinion the OP No.1 being a reputed airlines should have acted diligently so as to avoid any difficulty to their esteemed passengers but in the instant case due to negligent act of OPs the complainants have to undergo a lot of mental agony and harassment, which is a clear cut deficiency on the part of the OP No.1 and for that they are liable to compensate the complainant.
11. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. OP No.1 is directed as under:-

1. to pay ₹7,000/- to the complainants as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
2. to pay ₹5000/- to the complainants as costs of litigation.

12. This order be complied with by the OP No.1 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days till realisation, over and above payment of ligation expenses.
13. Complaint qua OP No.2 stands dismissed.
14. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
15.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			[Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
15/10/2024			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member