DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Sh. Varun Utreja S/o Madan lal Utreja R/o House No.3291, Sector 46-C, Chandigarh.

                                                                                    ---Complainant

V E R S U S

1]          Kingfisher, Kingfisher house, Western Express highway Vile Parle (E), Mumbai through its Chairman / Managing Director.

2]       The Chairman / Managing Director, Kingfisher, Kingfisher house, Western Express highway Vile Parle (E), Mumbai.

3]       M/s Gulati Travel Services through its proprietor, SCO 42-44, Sector 17-A (near Canadian high Commission), Chandigarh.

---Opposite Parties

BEFORE:            MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA                    PRESIDENT

                        MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                   MEMBER

                        SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU            MEMBER

Argued By:      Sh.Amit Rajan, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. H.C. Kalra, Advocate for the OP-3.

Sh. Y.S. Dhillon, Advocate for the OPs 1 & 2.

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1.             Complainant (hereinafter referred to as CC for short) has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as OPs for short), on the grounds that the CC who had recently got married on 28.9.2009 had planned a seven day honeymoon tour to Singapore from 30.9.2009 to 6.10.2009 and had accordingly made booking for hotel and star cruise well in advance. CC had also booked an air ticket of Singapore Airlines on Flight No. SQ 407 from Delhi to Singapore with its scheduled departure at 11:10 PM on 30.9.2009 from IGI Delhi.  The CC for his travel from Chandigarh to Delhi had got two tickets booked through OP-3 by paying an amount of Rs.5208/- for the confirmed ticket of the airline of OP-1&2 scheduled to depart at 5:35 PM on 30.09.2009.

                CC has alleged that while he along with his wife reached the Chandigarh Airport to board the said flight for Delhi, was surprised to know that the same has been cancelled and there was no flight departing on the scheduled time of OP-1&2. The CC who claims to have made to the airport 40 minutes in advance to the departure time of the scheduled flight was left marooned as all his further plans lay shattered before him for want of reaching Delhi before the scheduled departure of his Singapore flight. 

                CC claims that with great efforts and much difficulty, after having arranged a special vehicle and a driver and after shelling as much as Rs.9000/- could barely reach Delhi to catch the flight departing for Singapore. CC has alleged that the OPs were deficient in rendering proper services as they failed to inform him about the said change in schedule of the Chandigarh – Delhi flight, even though all his personal information was available with them. Thus, alleging deficiency in service, CC claims for the refund of Rs.5208/- the cost of tickets and Rs.9000/- against expenses for travel from Chandigarh to Delhi and further, prays for Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony, physical stress and financial loss suffered by the CC and his wife. An amount of Rs.10,000/- is also claimed from the OPs as cost of complaint.

2.              On notice, OP No.1 & No.2 filed their collective version, wherein they have taken a preliminary objection to the fact that the OP-1&2 arrayed as Kingfisher has no concern with the answering OP-1&2, because the name “Kingfisher” is not a legal entity and thus, being non-existent, the present complaint is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. However, the answering OPs have admitted to the fact that as the present complaint pertains to the flight operated by the Kingfisher Airlines Ltd., hence, the answering OPs have appeared, without prejudice to contest the claim of the CC. It is further submitted that as the Managing Director and the Chairman can’t be arrayed as respondents, reason being the company as such in itself is a legal entity and the same can be represented through its authorized representative.

                The answering OP-1&2 has denied their relationship with OP-3 as the tickets no. 090380015664 and 0903800146665 were booked through one Riya Travel & Tours India Pvt. Ltd. and the same has not been made party in the present complaint.

                OP-1&2 has further stated that as the scheduled flight that the CC was to take up on 30.9.09 departing at 5:30 PM was re-scheduled to alternate flight no. IT-4634 and the same was scheduled to depart at 3:30 PM. This information was to be provided on the contact number mentioned by the CC at the time of booking of the ticket.  Efforts were made to convey this information to the CC on the mobile number 9888880303 and the name of the contact person as recorded in the PNR history was Mr. Navneet Gulati. It is further stated that it was incumbent upon the CC to confirm the said ticket at least 24 hrs. before the scheduled departure. Hence, in the present circumstances, the answering OPs are in no way deficient in services, as alleged by the CC.  

                On facts, rest all other averments are repeated; whereas, the detail with regard to the re-scheduling speaks about the tickets booked by the CC on 11.09.2009 at 11:58 AM; whereas, the change of schedule for the period between 18.09.2009 to 30.09.2009 was declared at 8.04 PM on 11.09.2009. The OP-1&2 claims to reserve their right to re-schedule its flights due to different reasons and hence, it does not amounts to deficiency in service in any manner.

                The answering OPs1&2 in their reply under Para 13 has categorically stated that the refund of both the tickets i.e. Rs.4358/- has already been made to the actual booking agency – Riya Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd. The CCs claimed of hiring a taxi is denied for want of proof. Further, the CC having been successful in catching up with the Singapore flight and successfully boarding it also proves that the CC has not suffered in any manner. Hence, prays for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs. 

3.              OP-3 in its reply has questioned the facts of the present complaint and claims that the present complaint cannot be adjudicated upon without the complete evidence being adduced by the parties.  OP-3 has further stated that CC was very much in the knowledge of a toll free tel. no. printed on the ticket itself and any change with regard to booking and cancellation of the flight is flashed on the mobile number as provided by the customer.  This activity is taken up by the OP-1&2 and as such, OP-3 has no role to play in this regard, as he is merely an agent for the purpose of booking of the tickets.

                OP-3 has contested the veracity of the claim of the CC on the ground that the CC should have brought on record the detail of the phone calls and alleged SMSs so as to prove that no information or intimation was received at his end with regard to the change in schedule of the flight. Even the expenditure incurred by the CC amounting to Rs.9000/- for his travel from Chandigarh to Delhi is also denied, as CC has failed to bring on record any evidence to prove the same. Hence, alleging the present complaint to be based on falsity pray for the dismissal with heavy costs.  

4.              Parties led their respective evidences.

5.              Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the OPs, the evidence of the parties and with the able assistance of the ld. Counsel for the parties, we have come to the following conclusions:-

i)         As OP-1&2 has taken a strong preliminary objection with regard to the entity “KINGFISHER” as arrayed in the domain of the OPs and has prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint on this very ground itself. But at the same time OP-1&2 present, which is “KINGFISHER AIRLINES LIMITED” has failed to explain as from where it had got the knowledge about the institution of the present complaint and the compulsion on their part to contest the claim of the CC. we believe that a cursory look on the Annexure C-4 explains every thing as a faded blue ink mark of “KINGFISHER AIRLINES” as well as the word “KINGFISHER” along with its address is printed. As Annexure c-4 is the Electronic generated ticket provided by the OP-3 and the admission of OP-1&2 as the same belonging to them explains the service of notice upon them and hence their presence.   

ii)        The fact that the said Airlines ticket was got from OP-3 is established, buy still OP-3 has denied any deficiency in service on its part. It is very much clear from the reply of OP-1&2 that an intimation with regard to the changed schedule of the flight in question was intimated on the mobile number 9888880303 and also that the PNR history showed the name of one Mr. Navneet Gulati explains that OP-3 while electronically generating the said ticket had probably provided this information to OP-1&2.  Hence, it is clear that OP-3 failed to provide the correct information, as well as the correct contact number, where OP-1 & 2 could have conveyed the said change in schedule of the flight in question. OP-3 has failed to contest this fact and has remained silent while filing its version.

iii)       Though OP-1 & 2 are very much well within their rights to change the scheduled flight plan as well as the departure of the flights due to operational exigencies, but believing their version/ reply about the fact of intimation of the said change, we do not find any deficiency on the part of OP-1 & 2.

iv)       The fact with regard to the refund of the ticket in question, as submitted by OP-1&2 in Para 8 of their reply; whereas, the demand by the CC of not having received the refund, which is also included in the prayer clause, could have been answered by OP-3, as the CC was not introduced to Riya Travel and Tours Pvt. Ltd., to whom OP-1&2 has claimed to have refunded the amount, by OP-3, who himself had received the money from the CC. OP-3 has further, failed to explain the existence of Riya Travel and Tours Pvt. Ltd., who as per the version of OP-1&2 are the authorized agents on its behalf and not the OP-3. Under such circumstances, we believe that it was the duty of OP-3 to refund the amount collected by it for the said ticket once it had come to its knowledge that the CC could not travel by the said ticket.  The silence of OP-3 in this regard is objectionable.

6.      In the light of above observations we find OP-3 deficient in providing proper services. As such, we allow the present complaint against OP-3, as the identity of OP-1&2, as arrayed in the domain of OPs, is not established and furthermore,  we find OP-3 alone liable for the claim of the CC.  Hence, we direct the OP-3 to:     

(a) Refund the actual amount charged for the fare from Chandigarh to Delhi from the CC.

(b) Further, OP-3 is burdened with a consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, along with Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation.

7.              The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt; thereafter OP-3 shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the aforesaid amount, except for litigation expenses.  

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

Announced

28.10.2011                                                                                Sd/-

                    (LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)