This case coming on 05.12.2014 for final hearing before this Forum in the presence of Sri P. Moses, Advocate for the complainant and Sri Palaparthi Subbarao, Advocate for the 1st opposite party and 2nd opposite party remained exparte and having stood over to this date for consideration, this Forum pronounced the following:-
O R D E R
(By Sri A. Radha Krishna, President on behalf of the Bench)
1 The complainant seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the mental agony underwent by him and his daughter and interest thereon filed this complaint alleging deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.
2 The grievance of the complainant is that his daughter ADITI DIWEDI was to appear for NCERT examinations at Deharadun on 11.05.2008. In order to accompany his daughter he purchased tickets for both himself and his daughter for to and fro journey in the Airlines belonging to 2nd opposite party. It was done on online at Kakinada. 1st opposite party is agent of 2nd opposite party which is Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd. He purchased ticket on 09.05.2008. He had to returned to New Delhi and from there to vizag on 12.05.2008 by the flight. Accordingly they went Dehradun and returned back New Delhi to catch a flight to Visakhapatnam on 12.05.2008. The complainant also made arrangements for various programmes on 12.05.2008 as he is District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada. But he was informed schedule flight was not in operation. He also explained his urgency to the Airport Officials and as there were no alternative flights he was advised to proceed on 13.05.2008 from New Delhi to Hyderabad and from there to Vizag as there was no direct flights. Though he protested for not giving clear information with regard to cancellation of flights there was no response from opposite parties. Thus he was forced to postpone his journey to 13.05.2008 and also to change the route. They stayed back at Delhi by spending huge amounts on account of postponement of journey. Thus due to negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties he suffered mental agony. He also issued a notice to the both parties claiming damages. The 2nd opposite party issued reply admitting the mistake and undertook to pay Rs.20,000/- towards damages. Hence he sought the above said compensation.
3 At the first instance it is only the 2nd opposite party who filed written version and contested the matter and the 1st opposite party remained exparte. On behalf of the complainant they exhibited 3 documents Exs. A1 to A3 which are boarding passes, office copy of lawyer’s notice and reply received from 2nd opposite party.
4 On behalf of the 2nd opposite party they exhibited Exs. B1 to B3 which are copy of emails sent to the 2nd opposite party by the counsel for complainant, copy of website information rendered by them and cheque for Rs. 20,000/- issued by 2nd opposite party in favour of the complainant.
5 After considering the rival contentions this Forum by its order dated 25.03.2010 awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- damages against opposite parties 1 and 2 with interest @9% from the date of complaint till date of realization and also Rs. 1000/- towards costs.
6 Aggrieved by the said order the 2nd opposite party preferred FA 724/2010 and the 1st opposite party preferred FA 1226/2010 to the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad.
7 The Hon’ble State Commission while disposing of the appeals set-aside the order of this Forum and matter was remanded to this Forum for fresh disposal according to law after giving opportunity to both the parties.
8 Thus after remand the 1st opposite party filed its written version denying the material allegations attributed to them and further according to them this Forum has no Jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and also there was no cause of action at all to file the complaint and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. It is also their version all existing airlines travel ticket agency worked through mechanism of BSP [Billing and Settlement Plan ]which is a system designed. When new BSP commence operations in a country all agents are notified by IATA and invited to participate to facilitate and simplify the selling, reporting and remitting procedure of international Air Transport Association accredited passengers and agents as well as improve financial control and cash flow of BSP Airlines. Thus according to them there is no agent and principal relationship between them. Thus contending they sought dismissal of the complaint.
9 The 2nd opposite party filed its written version interalia contending that they are only online ticketing booking agents and their role is limited to sale of tickets to 1st opposite party and 1st opposite party has to inform the complainant about any change in journey. Considering the nature of service sector they also offered Rs.20,000/- to the complainant for the inconvenience caused to him. For the said offer the counsel for complainant sent email requesting enhancement of the amount. Though they offered such amount to extract more money the present complaint has been filed.
10 Now the points for determination are:
1. Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
2. If so, whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
3. If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the amount sought by him in the complaint?
11 Point No.1: The foremost contention of 1st opposite party is that as both parties are not within the jurisdiction of this Forum, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Though such a exclusion clause has been pleaded by 1st opposite party, admittedly the complainant booked the tickets online from Kakinada which fact is not disputed. Thus certainly part of cause of action arose at Kakinada which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum. In fact the Hon’ble State Commission also in para 11 observed since the flight ticket were booked at Kakinada online satisfied that part of cause of action arose at Kakinada and thus the District Forum at Kakinada has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Thus this point is answered accordingly.
12 Point No.2: It is the version of 2nd opposite party that it is only booking agent and it is for the 1st opposite party to notify any change or modification in the flight timings. On the other hand 1st opposite party claims there is no relationship principal and agent between them and 2nd opposite party. All IATA accredited agents in BSP country of operations are automatically eligible to participate in BSP. It is not dispute that the 2nd opposite party is authorized agent of booking tickets of Airlines belonging to 1st opposite party. Merely because they are accredit to IATA that doesn’t automatically exclude the relationship of principal and agent between 1st opposite party and 2nd opposite party.
13 Hence under these circumstances the contention of 1st opposite party that 2nd opposite party is not their agent can’t be accepted.
14 It is not in dispute on the date of return journey intend to be undertaken by the complainant there were no schedule flights belonging to the 1st opposite party from New Delhi to Visakhapatnam. The complainant had to undertake a deviated route to reach Visakhapatnam to Delhi. He was also forced to undertake this journey on the next day of his schedule departure which is on 12.05.2008. Thus in these circumstances it is to be considered there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2. Hence this point is answered in favour of the complainant.
15 Point No.3: Though the complainant sought Rs. 3,00,000/- damages and Rs.31,600/- interest thereon the complainant has not made out any basis for claiming such a huge amount. On the other hand the 2nd opposite party fairly conceded to offer Rs. 20000/- for the inconvenience caused to the complainant. Even in the email spent by the counsel for complainant to the 2nd opposite party he sought only enhancement of that amount and further also he requested 2nd opposite party to send the amount offered by 2nd opposite party in the name of complainant. After remand the 1st opposite party through its legal manager filed chief affidavit and also exhibited the copy of general information to the passengers. By mistake the said document is marked as Ex.B1 instead of Ex.B4. Thus the said document is to be treated as Ex.B4 only. Thus what is manifest as per Ex.B1 which is the copy of email sent by the counsel for complainant to 2nd opposite party they sought enhancement of Rs. 20,000/- from 2nd opposite party or otherwise requested them to send the cheque for that amount to the complainant. Thus at best the complainant is entitled for the said amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation and an amount of Rs.5,000/- expenses incurred by him against the opposite parties both jointly and severally. Thus this point is answered accordingly.
16 In the result, the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.25,000/- [Rupees twenty five thousand only] to the complainant within one month from the date of this order. Otherwise, the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% till realization.
Typed dictation by the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us, in open Forum, this the 22nd day of December, 2014
Sd/- xxxx Sd/- xxxxxxx
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For complainant :
PW1: Sri Gopal Krishna Dwivedi [Complainant]
For opposite party :
DW1: Sri Zakir Husain, Manager Legal, Jetlite [India] Ltd., New Delhi [OP1]
DW2: Sri Dhruv Shringi, Director, Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd. [OP2]
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For complainant:-
Ex.A1 Boarding passes [Nos.4]
Ex.A2 Office copy of legal notice got issued by the complainant to the opposite parties 1 and 2
Ex.A3 25.07.2008 Reply issued by the 2nd opposite party to the advocate for the complainant
For opposite parties:-
Ex. B1 E-mail sent to the opposite party No.2
Ex.B2 Copy of the website information rendered by the opposite party No.2
Ex.B3 21.11.2008 Cheque No. 043319 issued by the 2nd opposite party to the Complainant
Ex. B4 E-mail sent to the opposite party No.2
Sd/- xxxx Sd/- xxxxxxx
MEMBER PRESIDENT
