DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

          Complaint Case No.: 537 of 2009

 Date of Inst:20.04.2009

                Date of Decision:08.07.2010

Manjit Kaur w/o Joginder Singh Toor resident of H.No.530, Sector 33-B, Chandigarh.

                   ---Complainant

V E R S U S

1.   Khanna Enterprises, Travel Services, SCO 94-95, First Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.

2.   Aero Svit Air Lines, R-301, N-1, B.M.C., House Middle Circle, Cannaught Place, New Delhi.

---Opposite Parties

QUORUM       

              SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA         PRESIDENT

              SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI      MEMBER

              SMT.MADHU MUTNEJA            MEMBER

PRESENT:      Sh.Gurdial Singh, Adv. for complainant

Sh.G.S.Ahluwalia, Adv. for OP-1

Sh.Abhineet Taneja, Advocate for OP-2.

                        ---

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

          By this order, we are disposing of the following two consumer complaints including the present one as common questions of law and fact are involved in all these cases:-

2.        For the purpose of disposal of these complaints, the facts are gathered from C.C.No.537/2009-Smt.Manjit Kaur Versus Khanna Enterprises and Another.

3.        Smt.Manjit Kaur has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed  to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by her due to cancellation of the flight.

4.        In brief, the case of the complainant is that she purchased confirmed Ticket No.8703171386920  from OP-1 for travel from Delhi to Toronto on Aero Svit Airline (VV) 152 for 14.12.2008.  The flight was to commence at 5.55 a.m. from Indira Gandhi International Airport, Delhi and was to arrive at Toronto on 14.12.2008 at 17.00. On 14.12.2008 when the complainant visited the Airport to board the flight, she was informed by the staff of OP-2 that the flight was cancelled many days ago and information to this effect was sent to OP-1. It has been pleaded that due to cancellation of the flight, she had to suffer harassment as she had made arrangements for her departure on 14^th and she had certain engagements at her destination. It has further been pleaded that the rescheduling of the journey was done on 16.12.2008 which did not suit her. Thereafter, the complainant served a legal notice upon the OPs but to no effect.

          The case of the complainant is that the cancellation of the flight without information and rescheduling of the flight without her consent amounts to deficiency in service. In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

5.        In its written statement, OP-1 pleaded that it had sold the confirmed air tickets to the complainant for 14.12.2008 which had been cancelled by OP-2 on its own and therefore, it had nothing to do with the same. It has further been pleaded that OP-2 on its own cancelled the flight of the complainant and rescheduled the same for 16.12.2008 which the complainant utilized. It has been denied that OP-2 informed it regarding the cancellation of the flight of the complainant. In these circumstances, according to OP-1, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal.

6.        In its written statement, OP-2 admitted that on 14.12.2008 there was a schedule change of Aerosvit Airlines VV 152 and the ticket of the complainant was re-scheduled for 16.12.2008 on the same flight and the change of schedule was communicated to OP-1 on 06.11.2008 and therefore, it was the duty of OP-1 to inform the complainant regarding the change of schedule. It has been pleaded that as per resolutions of Warsaw Convention, Condition of Carriage 1937 and Aerosvit Airlines Rules as well as the resolution of IATA, OP-2 reserves its right to make schedule changes without notice and for change of schedule, the consent of the complainant is not required.  According to OP-2, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal.

7.        We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 

8.        It is also admitted case of the parties that the complainant had purchased air tickets for flight for travel from Delhi to Toronto on Aero Svit Airline (VV) 152 for 14.12.2008. The said tickets were confirmed tickets. It is also admitted that the flight did not take off on that day at the scheduled time. It was rescheduled for 16.12.2008. Admittedly, the complainant was not informed about the re-schedulement of the flight. Resultantly, the complainant reached Indira Gandhi International Airport, Delhi  on 14.12.2009 and was shocked to know that the flight had already been cancelled and rescheduled for 16.12.2009. The case of OP-2 is that it had informed OP-1 regarding cancellation and re-schedulement of the flight whereas the case of OP-1 is that he was not informed about the cancellation of the flight.  Admittedly, no information regarding cancellation and re-schedulement of the flight was given to the complainant either by OP-1 or OP-2. In the case titled as Station Master Vs. Ms. Femina Zai reported in 2008(1)-CPC-351(NC), the Hon'ble National Commission has held that failure to give information regarding cancellation of the flight to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service. Thus, failure on the part of the OPs to inform the complainant about the cancellation and re-schedulement of the air flight amounts to deficiency in service.

9.        As OP-1 is agent of OP-2, therefore, both the OPs are liable to compensate the complainant.

10.       In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with a direction to OPs to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation.

11.       Similar pleadings have been made in another connected case.

C.C.No.539 of 2009:-Joginder Singh Toor Vs. Khanna Enterprises and Another.

12.       This complaint is also allowed with a direction to OPs to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation.

13.       This order be complied with by OPs jointly and severally  within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs shall be liable to pay Rs.10,000/- to each of the respective complainants along with penal interest @ 18 p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e.       20.04.2009 till its realization besides paying the costs of litigation.

14.       Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

08.07.2010

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

cm

sd/-

(ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER