Delhi

New Delhi

CC/10/2016

Kapil Kumar Monga - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jet Airways (I ) Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

27 Jan 2020

ORDER

 

 

   CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC. 10 /2016                                                                  Dated:

In the matter of:

Kapil Kumar Monga

S/o Sh. Lakshmi Shankar Monga

R/o A-94, Mount Kailash

East of Kailash

New Delhi-110065                                                                                                                                                                                                   ……..COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

 

1.    Jet Airways (India) Ltd.

Having its Registered office at

Siroya Centre, Sahar Airport Road,

Andhri (East),

Mumbai, Maharashtra-400099

And also having Corporate office at:-

G11/12 Connaught Circus,

New Delhi.

 

2. Thomas Cook (India) Ltd.

Thomas Cook Building,

Dr. D.N. Road, Fort,

             Mumbai-400001

Also at:-

C-35 Connaught Place Inner Circle,

New Delhi-110001

                                                                                      ……………OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

 

H.M. VYAS-MEMBER 

 ORDER

Initially, the case was filed before Hon’ble State Commission and same and later withdrawn with liberty to file before appropriate Forum as per the order dated 18/08/2015 passed by Hon’ble State Commission in C-497/2015. Thereafter, the  present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act has been filed alleging deficiencies in service against the OPs.

Pursuant to the notice issued the parties put in appearances. The facts of the case emerged are that the  complainant with his friend booked return air tickets through OP-2 for holiday trip for traveling to Macau via Hongkong by Airlines operated by OP no. 1 and paid to OP-2 Rs. 21,738/- per person. After reaching Hongkong and getting requisite clearance the complainants proceeded to Macau by Sea Ferry and stayed there from 07/05/2015 to 10/05/2015. It is stated that the complainant for return checked out form Macau to board Sea Ferry to reach Hongkong  to get the scheduled flight from the Hongkong to Ho-Chi Minh city, and from there to IGI air port New Delhi. The complainant also purchased tickets of Sea Ferry from Macau to Hongkong air port. The persons staying at Macao can directly go to Hongkong air port by Sea Ferry directly, if they have valid Air tickets to board plain from Hong Kong. Complainant completed all immigration formalities at Macao on 11/05/2015 however, on reaching Macau port, the concerned officials of immigration department did not allow the complainant to board on the ferry meant for Hongkong Airport as there was no such flight no. 9W-4325 of OP-1 in operation as per Airport records to depart from Hongkong Airport to Ho-Chi Minh City as mentioned in the air-ticket. Flight mentioned by OPs on the ticket of the complainant did not reflect in their records and so, the officials of the Macau Port stopped the complainant to board Sea Ferry to travel to Hongkong Air port. It is alleged that the wrong flight number in the air ticket mentioned by the OP is gross deficiency in service. In these compelling circumstances the complainant had to reach Hongkong port by Sea Ferry on 11/05/2015 but again the complainant was not allowed to proceed to Hong Kong Air Port as there was no flight no. 9W-4325 of OP-1 Jet Air ways with departure time at 03.20pm (local time) on 11/05/2015.

The complainant was detained at Hongkong Port by immigration officials and was compelled and directed to return to the Macao, under detention. The complainant and was badly humiliated during detention (Nazar Band). The  movement was restricted and was confined to a particular place for about four hours by the immigration officials. They also issued intimation letter of detention to the complainant in Hindi to make him understand the he was under detention and not to raise any objection at any later stage. The complainant was, therefore forced to return to Hongkong to Macau under detention and had to arrange for  Hotel accommodation for extra stay. The complainant contacted to OP-2 who told that fresh air ticket will have to be purchased for the additional sum of Rs. 16,000/-. Accordingly, having no alternative the complainant contacted to his family members in Delhi who arranged for a fresh Air ticket (Jet Airways) through a travel agent for the flight 9W-77 operated by OP-1 from Hongkong to New Delhi with scheduled departure on 12/05/2015. The complainant had to undergo tremendous harassment and mental trauma for the negligent, carelessness and inattentive acts of OPs besides making extra expenditure of Rs. 16,000/- for ticket, hotel stay for Rs. 13,570/-, expanses for food Rs, 8,500/- and  Sea Ferry charges equilant to Rs. 2,175/-. Alleging deficiency in services prayer for compensation of Rs. 15 lacs and refund of Rs. 01,65,000/- has been made. 

After admitting the complaint, notice dated 17/02/2016 was issued to the OPs at their office address situated within the Connaught Place area and the case was fixed for hearing on 15/03/2016.

Both the parties appeared on the date fixed. The complaint was contested by both OPs and filed written statement/ version and denied all allegation made by the complainant.

It is stated on behalf of OP-2 there is no deficiency service on the part of OP-2 as the OP-2 has simply booked tickets for return travel of the complainant. It is however, not denied that the return ticket booked for complainant were for the flight of OP-1. It stated that any inconvenience, if caused by the immigration  official s at Macao can not to attributed to the OP-2. It is stated that the services of booking of tickets were sought by the complainant and accordingly, the tickets were issued. Prayer to dismiss the complaint has been made. It is also stated that the tickets mentioned the correct flight number and as such no deficiency of service as alleged exist on part of OP-2.

OP-1 filed its written statement and had raised preliminary objection of Territorial jurisdiction of this Forum in the light of Sonic Surgical. It is stated that the complainant is malafide and does not have any deficiency on behalf of OP-1. It is stated that the OP-1 is not involved in the transaction as the entire communication has taken placed between the complainant and OP-2 therefore noting can be attributed to the OP-1. It is stated is para 5 of the written statement that “It is pertinent to mote that in the present case also the OP-1 does not operate through its own aircraft between sectors in dispute and as such Vietnam Air Lines has been under taking the travel of passengers of OP Airlines between HongKong to HO Chi Minh City.”. It is also indicated there was a code share flight of  Jet Airways with Vietnam Air ways for Hongkong, which the complainant would have come to know easily after doing reasonable enquiry with the authority at the Hongkong air port and could not easily boarded his flight, however, he did not do anything in that connection.

It is pertinent to note that in present case also the OP-1 did not through its own air craft between the sectors in dispute and as such Vietnam Airlines has been undertaking the travel of the passenger of answering OP airline between Hong Kong and Ho Chi Minh City.

This information is also duly provided by the staff of answering  OP in case the passenger approaches the staff of the answering OP for any clarification in this regard apart from the agent’s fraternity who are also well aware about the said fact. It is also stated “Cone Sharing flight means a Commercial arrangement between two airlines (two different and separate legal entities) that allows passengers to use a ticket from one airlines to travel on another.”Denied all allegation prayer to dismiss the complaint has been made.

All the parties have filed their respective evidence by way of affidavit and the complainant and OP-2 addressed oral arguments as well.

We have considered the material placed before us and the submissions made on behalf of parties with relevant provisions of law.

So far as the objection about the territorial jurisdiction is concerned the same is declined in view of facts that the notice to both the OPs were served t their office located within the Connaught Place Police Station falling within the jurisdiction of this Forum and parties appeared and contested the case.

We have given due consideration to the document filed by the parties where from its evident that the complainant was issued the tickets by OP-2 for the flight of the OP-1. Both the OPs have shirked their responsibilities with respect to erroneous indicated/mention of the flight number which ultimately caused harassment to the complainant. The complainant has filed intimation of detention which substantiate his detention by the officials at Macao.

The OP-1 has clearly mentioned in its version and the evidence in affidavit that there was no flight being operated by OP-1 from Hong Kong to  Ho Chi Minh City in other words it is clear that even though there was code sharing agreement between OP-1 and Vietnam Air Lines, the tickets issued to the complainant ought to find mention of the concerned flight number being operated by Vietnam air lines.

In such circumstances the complainant had to buy another fresh tickets for Rs. 16,000/- besides facing detention by immigration officials at Hong Kong and had to stay in hotel at Macao till issuance of fresh ticket.

n view of the above, we hold OP-1 & OP-2 to be jointly and severally deficient in service and direct as under:-

1. Complainant to be paid Rs. 40,245/- (Cost of fresh air ticket for Rs. 16,000/-, 13,570/- for hotel room for food Rs. 8,500/- and Sea Ferry charges of Rs. 02,175/-  totaling to Rs. 40,245/-) with 9% simple interest per annum with effect from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 08/01/2016 till realization.
2. To pay Exemplary compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for harassment.

 

3. To pay Litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

The above amount shall be recoverable by the complainant jointly or severally form the OPs. 

A copy each of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post.

Orders be also sent to www.confonet.nic.in.

File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced in open Forum on 27/01/2020

 

 

 

      (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

      PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                                                           (H M VYAS)

            MEMBER                                                                                                   MEMBER