DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, LUCKNOW
CASE No.879 of 2010
Sri Saurabh Agarwal,
S/o Sri Santosh Kumar Agarwal ,
R/o Flat No.GF-1, Ashok Vihar Colony,
Near Vikas Nagar, Lucknow.
……Complainant
Versus
1. Jet Lite Airlines,
Chaudhery Charan Singh Airport,
Amausi.
Through its Marketing Manager.
2. Make My Trip Pvt. Ltd.
103, Udyog Vihar, Phase-1,
Gurgaon (Haryana).
Through its Manager (Customer Care). .......Opp. Parties
Present:-
Sri Vijai Varma, President.
Smt. Anju Awasthy, Member.
Sri Rajarshi Shukla, Member.
JUDGMENT
This complaint has been filed by the Complainant against the OPs for refund of amount of air ticket of Rs.6,070.00 and for payment of damages of Rs.75,000.00 with 18% interest and cost of case of Rs.10,000.00.
The case in brief of the Complainant is that he booked an air ticket of the OP No.1 through the OP No.2 for 14.02.2010 since on that date no direct flight was available from Lucknow to Hyderabad so that he had taken the connecting flight Lucknow to Delhi and then Delhi to Hyderabad of the OP No.1 and as per the ticket the schedule of the connecting flights was departure from Lucknow at 7.25 am and arrival at Delhi at 8.25 am and departure from Delhi at 9.25 am and arrival at Hyderabad at 11.25 am. On 14.02.2010 the Complainant reached Lucknow airport about 6.00 am where the OP No.1 informed the Complainant that his flight
-2-
is to depart on its scheduled time but when no announcement of his flight upto 7.00 am was made then the Complainant enquired with the OP No.1 then he was informed that since the flight No.S2138 has yet not come from Delhi and when it will come then he will be able to give any further information regarding its departure time from Lucknow to Delhi. All the passengers alongwith Complainant were harassed by the staff of OP No.1 and not attended properly even not ready to take care up to 9.00 am since the connecting flight of the OP No.1 was scheduled from Delhi to Hyderabad was 9.25 am of the same day and it was on its schedule as such under these circumstances the Complainant again met with the OP No.1 who had given in writing for full refund of the ticket. The OP No.1 further informed the Complainant that since his E-ticket was booked through the OP No.2 as such the refund will be made within 15 days through the OP No.2 in the account of the Complainant. Due to the defective services and negligence of the OP No.1 the Complainant could not reach Hyderabad on 14.02.2010 and could not join his new job on 15.02.2010 and subsequently he reached Hyderabad by taking another flight of Indigo on 15.02.2010 and joined his new job with the delay of one day on 16.02.2010 which was very embarrassing. After reaching Hyderabad Complainant contacted OP No.2 and also OP No.1 but till date no refund was made by the OPs despite several telephonic requests to the OPs which is unfair trade practice, hence this complaint.
The OP No.1 has filed the WS wherein it is mainly submitted that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate on this matter as the OP No.1 does not have the corporate office or branch office in the local limits of Learned Forum. Besides the OP has the right to cancel the e-ticket without assigning any reason to the passengers. Under the conditions of carriage which is printed on the e-ticket which is
a contract between the passenger and the airline company
-3-
which is a valid contract and is binding on both the parties. The bonafide action of OP No.1cannot be held as deficiency in service. As per the email dated 09.12.2010 from operation department, the departure of S2-138 was delayed due to poor visibility at Lucknow Airport due to which arrival of S2-137 from Delhi to Lucknow got delayed. Since the ATC did not give the permission for landing at Lucknow, consequently departure of S2-137 was delayed. The Complainant himself decided to get his ticket cancelled, as the flight was only delayed because of the reasons beyond control of OP No.1. The OP No.1 also cannot fly aircraft by violating the laws, norms namely landing and taking off without getting the clearance from the ATC. If any delay or cancellation, diversion is caused due to following and observing the aforesaid norms then the OP No.1 cannot be held responsible for the same. The OP No.2 is not the authorised ticketing agent of the OP No.1.All the existing airlines and the ticket/travel agents work through the mechanism of BSP. There is no agreement between make my trip Pvt. Ltd. being OP No.2 and Jet Lite India Ltd. for selling of tickets, hence no principal agent relationship exists. The ticket of the Complainant was purchased through web from the website of OP No.2 and the amount was paid to OP No.2 through internet. Upon receiving the payment OP No.1 issued a confirmed ticket. The Complainant has to take refund from OP No.2 and not from OP No.1 as the ticket No.705 3879210231 was booked through OP No.2 through BSP link. It is submitted that admittedly the staff at Lucknow airport has explained this procedure of refund to the Complainant at the time of cancellation of the flight. As per the email dated 20.10.2010 and 22.10.2010 from the Revenue Department of OP No.1 the refund for the aforesaid ticket has already been processed through BSP link on 10.07.2010 and the refund has been made to OP No.2. The OP No.2 has claimed a refund of Rs.3,958.00
-4-
instead of full refund of the amount paid to OP No.1 which has been already settled and allowed through BSP link on 10.07.2010. The staff of OP No.1 has properly attended all the passengers including the Complainant. The Complainant was advised to get his refund through OP No.2. There is no deficiency on the part of the answering OP No.1. If the Complainant considered joining of his alleged new job on time, then he should not have kept his date of journey for the last moment. The Complainant has not contacted OP No.1 for refund of the ticket. There is no unfair trade practice by OP No.1. There is neither any deficiency in service nor any negligence committed on the part of the OP No.1. The present complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
The OP No.2 has filed the reply wherein it is mainly submitted that the complaint is not maintainable as there is no case made out against the OP No.2 under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provide that a complaint can be instituted in the Court/Forum where the OP resides/carries on business or has a branch office which in the present case the OP No.2 does not have. No cause of action has arisen in Lucknow. As per the Complainant, he had allegedly booked the air ticket through the internet and website of OP No.2. It is settled law that territorial jurisdiction of a court or a tribunal cannot be created by availing services of any person through internet. The said delay was caused due to the bad weather conditions and heavy fog, which was beyond the control of the OPs and the same was neither deliberate nor intentional on the part of the OP No.2. The role and responsibility of the OP No.2 was limited to book the air ticket for the Complainant which service has been duly rendered by the OP No.2 by providing confirmed air
-5-
ticket to the Complainant. On 13.02.2010 the Complainant made an online booking for a flight to Hyderabad via Delhi. Due to fog the flight from Lucknow got indefinitely delayed and as such the ticket was cancelled, hence the Complainant requested for refund of the ticket amount. The OP No.2 vide email dated 15.02.2010 requested the Complainant to send the scanned copy of the tickets in order to enable the OP No.2 to process the claim with the OP No.1 which was provided by the Complainant vide email 04.03.2010. The same reminder was again sent by the Complainant vide email dated 22.03.2010. The OP No.2 always requested the Complainant to handover the documentary proof and the OP No.1 has agreed to make the full refund of the booking amount of Rs.6,070.00 for the ticket. It is denied that the OP No.1 informed the Complainant that since his E-ticket was booked through the OP No.2 as such the refund will be made within 15 days through the OP No.2 in the account of the Complainant. It is submitted that no such communication was ever made to the OP No.2. The Complainant has not mentioned anywhere in the complaint about any defective services provided by the OP No.2 but talks about the defective services and negligence only on part of the OP No.1. The OP No.2 vide its email dated 22.12.2010 offered the Complainant to make a full refund of the booking amount of Rs.6,070.00 and also a compensation in the form of a round trip air ticket to any part of India for one person. As the Complainant was not satisfied with the said settlement offer, the OP No.2 vide its email dated 10.01.2011 informed the Complainant that the booking amount of Rs.6,070.00 had already been refunded to the Complainant on 05.01.2011 on the card through which payment was made and also gave an alternative settlement offer to the Complainant. The OP No.2 still offers to pay the Complainant an interest of 8% on the fare of the tickets for the period of delay in the refund and also a compensation of Rs.10,000.00 in the form of a voucher as full
-6-
and final settlement of all claims. No case of deficiency in service against the OP No.2. The Complainant is not entitled for any compensation and costs. The OP No.2 has acted with utmost care and diligence by providing the confirmed tickets. The complaint deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
The Complainant has filed his affidavit with 8 annexures and paper No.5 to 12 with the complaint. The OP No.1 has filed the affidavit of Sri Zakir Husain, Manager Legal, Jet Lite India Ltd. with 3 annexures and 3 annexures with the WS. The OP No.2 has filed the affidavit of Kamal K. Avutapalli, Manager Legal & Company Secretary, Make My Trip India Pvt. Ltd.with 3 annexures.
Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.
Now, it is to be seen as to whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to decide the case or not. It is also to be seen as to whether the OPs got the flight from Lucknow to Delhi delayed and did not make alternative arrangement whereby the Complainant’s flight from Delhi to Hyderabad was missed and thus the OPs have committed deficiency in service as is the contention of the Complainant or the flight was delayed because of fog and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and the consequences thereof.
Now, we first take up the point as whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction or not. In this regard, firstly the Complainant had booked the ticket through internet through OP No.2 from Lucknow and secondly the tickets were from Lucknow to Delhi, therefore it is quite clear that as the ticket was booked at Lucknow and the flight was from Lucknow to Delhi, therefore Lucknow Forum has the territorial jurisdiction to decide this case.
It is not disputed that the Complainant had booked flight from Lucknow to Delhi and thereafter from Delhi to Hyderabad through the OP No.2 of the flights of OP No.1. It is
-7-
also not disputed that flight from Lucknow to Delhi was much delayed, hence the Complainant had no chance of catching flight of onward journey from Delhi to Hyderabad. The disputed point according to the OP No.2 is that the delay was caused due to bad weather conditions and beyond the control of the OPs. The arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the Complainant is that if the flight got delayed it is the responsibility of OPs to make an alternative arrangement so that the Complainant could catch his onward journey flight from Delhi to Hyderabad but as no alternative arrangement was made, therefore the Complainant had to miss the flight from Delhi to Hyderabad also causing a lot of inconvenience. It transpires from the WS of the OP No.2 that they had offered the Complainant to make payment of full booking amount of Rs.6,070.00 and also compensation in the form of round trip air ticket (domestic + direct) to any part of India for one person but the Complainant was not satisfied by the settlement, hence he was informed that the booking amount of Rs.6,070.00 had already been refunded to the Complainant on 05.01.2011 on the card through which payment was made and additionally the OP No.2 on its own account offered to pay the Complainant an interest of 8% on the fare of the tickets for the period of delay in the refund and above beyond the fair of the tickets a compensation of Rs.10,000.00 in the form of voucher in view of the round trip ticket offered but the Complainant did not respond to the email sent. From these averments, it is clear that the OP No.2 indirectly admits the deficiency in service and therefore they not only refunded the amount of the cost of the tickets but also offered to pay interest on the period of delay as well as Rs.10,000.00 in the form of voucher in lieu of the round trip ticket but all these averments to have been made after the case was filed in the Forum on 30.09.2010 as the offers appeared to have been made in December, 2010. The OP No.1 has admitted in their WS that the flight was delayed
-8-
due to fog. Now, if because of fog it was not possible to operate the flights then the OP should have refunded the amount of the tickets but they did not do so until a case was filed in the Forum. It is obvious that once the flight from Lucknow to Delhi was delayed for more than 4 hours then the connecting flight which was to take off from Delhi after one hour after the arrival of flight from Lucknow to Delhi was also going to be missed by the Complainant for none of the fault of the complaint. The Complainant of course had to suffer because of missing of not only the flights from Lucknow to Delhi but also onward flight from Delhi to Hyderabad causing him a lot of inconvenience as he was supposed to join the duties in Hyderabad. As mentioned above, if the OPs had to delay the flights because of fog they should have refunded the amount of the tickets to the Complainant but they did not do so in the right earnest. The plight of the Complainant could be well understood once he was going to join the services at Hyderabad when the flights booked with the OPs were delayed and there was no possibility of the Complainant reaching well in time at Hyderabad to report to duty. Under the circumstances, the OPs have committed deficiency in service in not arranging alternative flights to the Complainant so that he could reach Hyderabad well in time whereas from the averments made by the OP No.1 itself it is clear that the OP No.1 had made alternative arrangement for the delayed flights of other flights but no such alternative arrangement was made for the Complainant so that he could reach from Lucknow to Hyderabad well in time. Besides, as mentioned above, once the ticket was cancelled the refund should have been made in the right earnest which also not done, therefore the OPs have committed deficiency in service. Even though the OP No.2 has refunded the amount of the tickets of Rs.6,070.00 but the same has been done after the filing of the case i.e. after causing
-9-
much harassment to the Complainant, therefore the Complainant is entitled to compensation for the harassment caused to him and the Complainant is litigating for the last about 5 years, therefore he is entitled to cost of the litigation. Considering the circumstances of the case a sum of Rs.20,000.00 will suffice as compensation and Rs.4,000.00 as cost of the litigation.
ORDER
The complaint is partly allowed.
The OPs are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.20,000.00 (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) as compensation and Rs.4,000.00 (Rupees Four Thousand only) as cost of the litigation. The compliance of the order is to be made within a month. If the compliance of the order is not made within a month then the OPs will have to pay 9% interest on the entire amount due.
(Rajarshi Shukla) (Anju Awasthy) (Vijai Varma)
Member Member President Dated: 1 June, 2015
