PER:
Charanjit Singh, President
1 The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Section 11, 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the allegations that on 11 August, 2017 the complainant Rajwinder Kaur Sandhu has purchased one return ticket of opposite party No. 1 from opposite party No. 2 and opposite party No. 2 has purchased and got confirmed the ticket from opposite party No. 3. The said ticket was confirmed for travel from Amritsar (Punjab) to Saskatoon (Canada) for the date October 02, 2017 and further the same ticket was confirmed for return from Saskatoon (Canada) to Amritsar (Punjab) for the date December 26, 2017. The complainant has paid total Rs. 96,600/- as payment for the purchased ticket and the ticket was handed over to the complainant. On October 2nd, 2017 the complainant has travelled from Amritsar to Saskatoon (Canada) by scheduled flight of Jet Airways. Afterwards on December 26, 2017 the complainant has gone to Airport for travel from Saskatoon to Amritsar on schedule flight. Afterwards on December 2017 the complainant has gone to Airport for travel from Saskatoon to Amritsar on schedule flight. After boarding the luggage, when the complainant has obtained the boarding pass, it was intimated to her that her return ticket was got cancelled. The complainant got astonished and inquired about the fact and it came to her knowledge that her ticket was got cancelled in an arbitrary manner by the agents or Jet Airways without any kind of intimation/ notice given to her on mobile or through any other way of communication. The complainant has never requested for cancellation of the ticket, as such, the ticket could not be got cancelled without giving any notice to her. The complainant has suffered a lot at the airport due to above said circumstances. She could not get the return ticket for the same day for returning to Amritsar (Punjab) As such, the complainant has mentally and physically harassed due to deficiencies in services and unfair trade practices on the part of the opposite parties. Afterwards, the complainant has purchased return ticket for the date 28th December 2017 of Air Canada and had to spent Rs. 80,600/- for the purchase of ticket. The complainant has brought in to notice of the opposite parties all the above said facts and circumstances and further has requested for so many times to return the amount of cancelled ticket, to reimburse her the amount of return ticket as spent by her due to act and conduct on the part of the opposite parties but no officials/ agents of all the above said addressees have bothered to hear the genuine request of the complainant. The complainant has prayed that the opposite parties may be directed to reimburse the expenses up to Rs. 80,600/- i.e. amount of return ticket as incurred by the complainant for purchasing the return ticket and Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses. Alongwith the complaint, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex. C-1 alongwith documents i.e. self attested copy of Air ticket of Jet Airways Ex. C-2, Self attested copy of Air ticket of Jet Airways Ex. C-3, Self attested copy of Air ticket of Jet Air Canada Ex. C-4, Self attested copy of invoice of Air Canada Ticket Ex. C-5, Self attested copy of text of email Ex. C-6, Self attested copy of legal notice Ex. C-7, self attested copy of postal receipt Ex. C-8, Self attested copy of postal receipt Ex. C-9, Self attested copy of postal receipt Ex. C-10.
2 After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties and opposite party No. 1 appeared through counsel and filed written version by taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has suppressed true and material facts from this Commission and not approached with clean hands. He is trying to mislead this commission. The present complaint is not maintainable. Mr. Vishal Ludhra son of Lt. Sh.Amit Luthra, authorized signatory of the Company is authorized to sign and verify the reply/ written statement, Vakalatnama etc. and appoint advocate(s) on behalf of the opposite party No. 1. The above complaint is totally false, frivolous and vexatious and has been filed to extort money in illegal manner. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed in contravention of the Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 which states that for the jurisdiction of the complaint either of the opposite party or opposite party shall severally or jointly resides or carries on business; and if there is more than 1 opposite parties and there is any opposite party who does not reside or carries on business, acquiesces to such institution of complaint within the commission or for which permission of the commission is obtained. However, as evident from point No. 12 of the present complaint. The complainant himself has filed the present complaint based on the residence or place of business or other opposite parties and for which neither consent have been given by the opposite party No. 1 nor permission of the District commission has been sought by the complainant. Hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed at the very outset due to no jurisdiction of this commission. The instant complaint is filed in respect of seeking refund and compensation for tickets that were cancelled by the complainant’s travel agent himself and not by opposite party No. 1. The complainant booked a return ticket through opposite party No. 2 (who in turn purchased the same from the travel agency i.e. opposite party No. 3) for himself for travelling from Saskatoon (Canada) to Amritsar (Punjab) which the complainant alleges were arbitrarily cancelled by opposite parties. The complainant had booked her travel tickets through her travel agent M/s Verma Travels for her travel from Amritsar to Saskatoon (Canada) via Delhi on 2.10.2017 having Flight details as Amritsar to Delhi having Flight No.9W-2794H on 2.10.2017; from Delhi to Toronto (Canada) having Flight No.9W-0234H on 3.2.2017; from Toronto (Canada) to Saskatoon (Canada) and as per the records of the opposite party No. 1, complainant has used all above mentioned tickets. The complainant had booked her tickets for her return travel from Saskaton (Canada) to Amritsar via Delhi on 26.12.2017, which she realized after reaching to the Airport that it was cancelled. However, as per the investigation and information of the opposite party No. 1, complainant and her Travel Agent had not provided any contact details as well as email details while booking her travel tickets, due to which opposite party No. 1 was unable to send any notification to the complainant for alleged cancellation of tickets by the travel agent i.e. opposite party No. 2 and 3, whereas it is mandatory for any travel agent to provide all contact Numbers as well as email details of their respective customers, to avoid inconvenience which may be suffered by passenger at airport. The complainant’s return ticket from Saskatoon (Canada) to Toronto (Canada) having Flight No. AC-1122 (Air Canada) on 26.12.2017; from Toronto (Canada) to Delhi having Flight No. 9W-233 on 26.12.2017 and from Delhi to Amritsar on 28.12.2017 having Flight No. 9W-364 was cancelled by complainant’s Travel Agent himself and not by opposite party No.1. The complainant has not booked her tickets from opposite party No. 1 instead the tickets were admittedly booked through third party travel agent i.e. opposite parties No. 2 and 3 (Verma Travels) and any kind of refund or cancellation of ticket with or without charges is the sole responsibility and liability of the opposite party No. 3 only. The is no such alleged transaction that took place between the complainant and the opposite party no. 1 and there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite party No. 1 and therefore, the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed against the opposite party No. 1. The complainant should approach the opposite party No. 3 for refund of the tickets and any grievance pertaining to alleged arbitrary cancellation of tickets. Accordingly, it is submitted that the opposite party No. 1 is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the complaint and the present complaint is liable to be dismissed due to mis joinder of parties. In the instant case, the complainant had communicated with the opposite party No. 3 only. There is no such alleged transaction that took place between the complainant and the opposite party No. 1 and there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite party No. 1 and therefore, the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed against the opposite party No.1. The complainant should approach the opposite party No. 3 for refund of the tickets and any grievances pertaining to alleged arbitrary cancellation of tickets. Accordingly, it is submitted that the opposite party No. 1 is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the complaint and the present complaint is liable to be dismissed due to misjoinder of parties. In the instant case, the complainant had communicated with the opposite party No. 3 only. Therefore, even if the allegations of the complainant were assumed to be correct, then it is the opposite party No. 3 only who had arbitrarily cancelled tickets of the complainant. The opposite party No. 1 does not associate itself in any way with the opposite party No. 3 and therefore, the opposite party No. 1 is not responsible for any act or abstinence to act on the part of the opposite party No. 3. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No. 1. No dispute as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act is caused to have arisen between the complainant and opposite party No.1 and thus, the relief prayed for is ought to be dismissed against the opposite party No.1. On merits, it was pleaded that the complainant’s travel agent itself had not provided any contact details as well as email details while booking travel tickets for complainant, due to which opposite party No. 1 was unable to send any notification to the complainant with regard to cancellation of her tickets by the travel agent. It is mandatory for any travel agent to provide all contact numbers as well as email details of their respective customers, to avoid inconvenience. However, the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 did not comply with the policy and did not provide contact details of complainant. The cancellation of ticket has not been initiated by the opposite party No. 1 but by the complainant’s travel agent for reasons best known to them only. Also relevant notification for cancellation could not be sent to the complainant as opposite party No. 3 had not entered the communication/ correspondence details of the complainant. Therefore, the opposite party No. 1 cannot be held liable for any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice by any stretch of imagination nor has any mental/ physical harassment been caused to the complainant for which the opposite party No. 1 cannot be held accountable. The opposite party No. 1 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same. Alongwith the written version, the opposite party No. 1 HAS PLACED ON RECORD AFFIDAVIT OF Vishal Luthra Ex. OP1/1, letter of authorization Ex. OP1/2, copy of regulation Ex. OP1/3, email conversation Ex. OP1/4, statement Ex. OP1/5, Reply to legal notice Ex. OP/6, PNR copy Ex OP/7, E ticket list Ex. OP1/8.
3 Opposite party No. 2 appeared through counsel and has filed written version by interalia pleadings that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form. The complainant has not come to the commission with clean hands. He is guilty of concealment of true and material facts, as such he is not entitled to any relief claimed in the complaint. The complainant herself has concocted a false story and put forward wrong facts just in order to seek the present relief and further just in order to harass, humiliate the opposite party and further in order to gain monitory benefits has filed the present complaint. The complainant is not the consumer of the opposite party and hence the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form against the opposite party. The complainant has no concern or link with the opposite party No. 2 as the opposite party No. 2 has no concern or link with the complainant and above all the opposite party No.2 has no concern with the alleged dealing, as the complainant had never handed over any money for alleged booking of the ticket and just to create the jurisdiction of this commission the opposite party No. 2 has been arrayed as party in the present complaint, as the opposite party no. 2 has no concern with the Travel Agents as well as there is no link in between the complainant as well as opposite parties No. 1 and 3, the complainant has just arrayed the opposite party no. 2 for her ulterior motives and to have monitory benefits. Above all there is no allegation and any documentary proof placed on record by the complainant against the opposite party above all the opposite party No. 2 is not a travel agent or having any booking agency and further the opposite party No. 2 has no concern or link regarding the alleged transaction and even the complainant party has also not placed on record any document to support their alleged submissions. The opposite party No. 2 has no concern or link with the complainant and as well as opposite party Nos. 1 and opposite party 3. This commission has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. The opposite party No. 2 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same. Alongwith the complaint the opposite party No. 2 has placed on record affidavit of Vihesh Verma Ex. OP2/1.
4 The opposite party No. 3 appeared through counsel and filed written version by interalia pleadings that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form and is liable to be dismissed. Infact, it is commercial transaction. It does not fall within the definition of Consumer Act. The opposite party No. 3 does not fall within the definition of consumer. The complainant has not availed the services of opposite party No. 3. The ticket was purchased from Vishesh Verma Prop. Of M/s Verma Travels Muradpura Road, Near MC Office Tarn Taran, Punjab which he purchased from Rohit Kumar a Travel Agent of Amritsar. The complainant never contacted or purchased the Air Ticket from Verma Travels Ludhiana, Punjab. Both Verma Agencies i.e. Verma Travels from Tarn Taran Punjab and Verma Travels, Ludhiana are run by different owners and never contacted each other for issuing Air Ticket to complainant. The complaint filed by the complainant is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties. The opposite party No. 3 has unnecessarily been arrayed in the present complaint only to harass the opposite party No. 3. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No. 3 as the ticket was not purchased from opposite party No. 3 and as such, the complaint filed by the complainant may please be dismissed with costs. The complainant paid the amount of ticket to Vishesh Verma C/o Verma Travels, Tarn Taran, Punjab. The opposite party No. 3 has nothing to do with this ticket and has wrongly been dragged in to the unwarranted litigation. The complainant and Vishesh Verma never contacted or paid ticket amount to opposite party No. 3. The complainant has not purchased the ticket from opposite party No. 3 so the question of cancellation of ticket does not arise at all. The opposite party No. 3 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same. Alongwith the written version, the opposite party No. 3 has placed on record affidavit of Rakesh Kumar Verma Ex. OP3/1.
5 The complainant has filed rejoinders to the written versions filed by the opposite parties and denied the allegations leveled in the written versions and reiterated the stand as taken in the complaint. Alongwith the rejoinder the complainant has placed on record self attested copy of reply to legal notice Ex. C-11, Self attested copy of attached document with e mail Ex. C-12, Self attested copy of contents of E mail Ex. C-13.
6 We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record.
7 The combined and harmonious reading of pleadings and documents is going to prove that complainant Rajwinder Kaur Sandhu purchased one return ticket of opposite party No. 1 from opposite party No. 2. Further the opposite party No. 2 has got confirmed the ticket from opposite party No. 3. The said ticket was confirmed for travel from Amritsar (Punjab) to Saskatoon (Canada) for the date October 02, 2017 and same ticket was confirmed for return from Saskatoon (Canada) to Amritsar (Punjab) for the date December 26, 2017. The complainant had paid total Rs. 96,600/- for the purchased ticket. On 26.12.2017 the complainant has gone to Airport for travel from Saskatoon to Amritsar on schedule flight. After boarding the luggage, when the complainant has obtained the boarding pass, it was intimated to her that her return ticket which was booked by her was cancelled. The complainant got astonished and inquired about the fact and it came to her knowledge that her ticket was got cancelled in an arbitrary manner by the agents or Jet Airways without any kind of intimation/ notice given to her on mobile or through any other way of communication. No notice or mail was communicated to the complainant on her mobile. The complainant has never requested for cancellation of the ticket, as such, the ticket could not be got cancelled without giving any notice to her. The complainant has suffered a lot at the airport due to above said circumstances as she could not get the return ticket for the same day for returning to Amritsar (Punjab). Afterwards, the complainant has purchased return ticket for 28th December 2017 of Air Canada and had spent Rs. 80,600/- for the purchase of ticket. The complainant has brought in to notice of the opposite parties all the above said facts and circumstances and further has requested for so many times to return the amount of cancelled ticket but the opposite parties never bothered to hear the genuine request of the complainant. On the other hands, the opposite party No. 1 has taken the specific objection that as per Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which states that for the jurisdiction of the complaint either of the opposite party or opposite party shall severally or jointly resides or carries on business; and if there is more than 1 opposite parties and there is any opposite party who does not reside or carries on business, acquiesces to such institution of complaint within the commission or for which permission of the commission is obtained. As per version of opposite party No. 1 the said ticket in question was cancelled by the complainant’s travel agent himself and not by opposite party No. 1. The said ticket booked by complainant through opposite party No. 2, who in turn purchased the same from the travel agency i.e. opposite party No. 3. He further stated that as per the investigation and information of the opposite party No. 1, complainant and her Travel Agent had not provided any contact details as well as email details while booking her travel tickets, due to which opposite party No. 1 was unable to send any notification to the complainant for alleged cancellation of tickets by the travel agent i.e. opposite party No. 2 and 3, whereas it is mandatory for any travel agent to provide all contact Numbers as well as email details of their respective customers, to avoid inconvenience which may be suffered by passenger at airport. The said return ticket was cancelled by travel agent himself and not by opposite party No. 1. If any kind of refund or cancellation of ticket with or without charges is sole responsibility and liability of Opposite party No. 3 only. There is no alleged transaction that took place between the complainant and opposite party No. 1 and there is no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite party No.1. The opposite party No. 2 stated that the complainant herself has concocted a false story and put forward wrong facts just to seek the present relief and further just to harass, humiliate the opposite party No. 2. The complainant is not consumer of the opposite party No. 2, hence, the present complaint may be dismissed. The complainant is not consumer of opposite party No. 2 as he has never handed over any money for the alleged booking of the ticket. Above all there is no allegation and any documentary proof placed on record by the complainant against the opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 is not a travel agent or having any booking agency and further the opposite party No. 2 has no concern or link regarding the alleged transaction. The opposite party No. 3 has also denied the relief claimed by the complainant as the complainant has not availed the services of opposite party No. 3. The said ticket was purchased from Vishesh Verma Prop. of M/s Verma Travels Tarn Taran i.e. Opposite party No. 2 which he purchased from Rohit Kumar, a Travel Agent working in Amritsar. Further opposite party No. 3 stated that the complainant never contacted or purchased the Air Ticket from Verma Travels Ludhiana. Both Verma Agencies i.e. Verma Travels Tarn Taran and Verma Travels Ludhiana are being run by different owners and never contacted each other for issuance of Air ticket to the complainant. As per version of opposite party No. 3 the complainant paid amount of ticket to Vishesh Verma Tarn Taran. Opposite party No. 3 is nothing to do with the ticket and he has been wrongly dragged in to unwarranted litigation.
8 The opposite party No. 1 has taken objection that the complaint cannot file the said complaint in District Consumer Commission, Tarn Taran but we are not agree with the opposite party No. 1 as the complainant has purchased the ticket from Vishesh Verma c/o Verma Travels Tarn Taran, as such, the complaint is maintainable in this commission. All the opposite parties are denying the relief as claimed by the complainant, whereas the opposite party No. 1 has admitted in their reply that the complainant has paid a total sum of Rs. 96,600/- for the purchase of said ticket and also admitted that the said ticket was cancelled. The opposite party No. 1 has also admitted that as per their investigation and information of opposite party No. 1 the complainant and her travel agent has not provided any contact detail as well as email detail while booking her travel ticket due to which opposite party No. 1 could not to send any intimation to the complainant for cancellation of the ticket whereas it is mandatory for any travel agent to provide all contact Numbers as well as email details of their respective customers, to avoid inconvenience which may be suffered by passenger at airport. By admitting the said fact, it is very much clear that there is clear cut deficiency on the part of opposite parties because opposite parties No. 2 and 3 are agent of the opposite party No. 1 as such cannot escape from the responsibility to intimate the complainant being agent. The opposite party No. 1 would have instructed the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 being their agent not to book any ticket without the contract and email details because it is a mandatory feature to book the Air ticket. So in this way opposite party No. 1 is deficient in its service. Moreover, the complainant has specifically pleaded that the ticket has been purchased from Vishesh Verma c/o Verma Travels Tarn Taran and it is very much clear that whatever money has been paid by the complainant to the opposite party No. 2 to purchase ticket. Now opposite party No. 2 cannot escape from his responsibility and opposite party No. 2 is throwing its responsibility upon the opposite party No. 3 from which they have arranged ticket i.e. Verma Travels Ludhiana. All the opposite parties are at fault and they are shifting the responsibility upon each other. It is very much clear from the pleadings and documents that the ticket was purchased from opposite parties No. 2 and 3 and both parties are agents of the opposite party No. 1. It is pertinent to mention here that Air lines for the sale of tickets appoint their agents or sub agents. It is vicariously as well as directly liability for the acts of omission and commission of their agents. In this complaint, it is the convenient plea of the opposite party No. 1 as well as the agent that none of them is guilty because the complainant has not mentioned any mobile and e mail address to convey about the cancellation of ticket. In such eventuality the sufferer is consumer. In the instant case, the complainant has not received any information regarding cancellation of flights from opposite party No. 1 as well as from the other opposite party. Once the ticket was issued by the agent it was incumbent upon the Air lines i.e. opposite party NO. 1 to prove that the information regarding cancellation of flight was duly sent to the complainant. Had the opposite party being informed about the cancellation of flight when complainant reached airport for travelling from Saskatoon to Amritsar on the scheduled flight. There was no question that complainant has not gone to Airport for catching flight. In such type of situation the complainant was suffered in the hands of the opposite parties i.e. too in foreign land. The opposite parties cannot in any manner escape from the charge of deficiency in service vicariously as well as directly and is , therefore, liable to compensate the complainant as to loss and injury i.e. mental injury suffered by her. Definitely the complainant has suffered loss due to negligent act of opposite parties by not conveying the information of cancellation of ticket in time and complainant was forced to purchase the new ticket for going to India as such, he has been harassed by the opposite parties. Hence it amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Reliance has been placed upon Royal Nepal Airlines Vs Vishal Arya and Anr in Appeal No. A-1683 of 2001 date of decision 4.9.2006 in which Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi held that Air flight was cancelled for which complainants were carrying confirm tickets. It was contended by opposite party that complainants were informed about cancellation through its agents through whom tickets were purchased. Appellants cannot escape liability for deficiency in service on ground of vicarious liability. Order of District Forum awarded cost of tickets and expenses with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- upheld.
9 In view of above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to make the payment of Rs. 80,600/- to the complainant. The complainant has been harassed by the opposite parties unnecessarily for a long time. The complainant is also entitled to Rs.15,000/- ( Rs. Fifteen Thousand only) as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs 10,000/- ( Rs. Ten Thousand only) as litigation expenses. Opposite Parties are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum, on the awarded amount, from the date of complaint till its realisation. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Commission and due to COVID-19. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties as per rules. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Commission.
13.09.2022
