DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 20^th day of April, 2023

Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President

             : Smt.Vidya A., Member                       

             : Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member         Date of filing: 14/09/2021   

CC/140/2021

    Lini Joseph

    D/o Joseph A, Residing at Rosevilla

    Ummini Railway Colony

    Kakkejykabgara (P.O), Akathethara

Palakkad – 678 009                                                      -         Complainant

(By Adv. M.J.Vince)                             

                                                           V/s

1. Lufthansa Airlines

    12^th Floor, DLF Building No. 10

    Tower B, DLF City Phase 2

    Gurgaon – 122 002

    (Ex-parte)

2. Directorate General of Civil Aviation

    (D.G.C.A) Arrbindo Marg

    Near Safadganj Airport

New Delhi – 110 003                                                     -         Opposite parties

(By Adv. P.M.Ramesan,

 Central Government Standing Counsel)

O R D E R

By Smt. Vidya.A, Member

1.   Pleadings of the complainant in brief

      The complainant booked a ticket in Lufthansa Airlines (1^st opposite party) for travelling from Delhi to Warsaw by paying a total amount of Rs.37,623/- The flight was scheduled on 15^th August 2021 and on that day she reached in time for check in.  When she was waiting for boarding pass, the staff of the Airline refused the boarding pass for the reason that she was overstayed in New Delhi.  She had a valid ticket and was having a valid work permit and the Polish authorities were ready to accommodate her also.  The airlines did not give the boarding pass for the reasons known to them. 

          The complainant contacted the 1^st opposite party immediately and enquired about the next flight.  But the 1^st opposite party was not ready to disclose about the next flight or to refund the ticket amount.  After that they did not reply to the mails send by the complainant.  After making several attempts for getting a ticket with opposite party or to get refund of the amount, the complainant managed to get a ticket from another airline and reached Poland.

          The act of levying exorbitant rate for the ticket and not informing the complainant about the travel restrictions if any before issuing the ticket and not refunding the ticket amount is clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

          The 2^nd opposite party is duty bound to control and supervise the activities of the airline companies and to ensure that the airline companies are working according to the guidelines.  The 2^nd opposite party failed to do their duty which amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

          So the complainant filed this complaint for directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh as compensation inclusive of ticket charges to the complainant and to pay the entire cost of the proceedings.  She also prayed for directing the 2^nd opposite party to control the issuance of ticket under their guidelines and make cancellation payments under strict surveillance and to avoid cancellation of ticket at the last moment without any valid reason.

2.   Complaint was admitted and notice was issued to the opposite parties.  Notice to 1^st opposite party returned with endorsement ‘left’.  Complainant produced fresh address of 1^st opposite party and the notice sent in that address is also returned.  Later complainant produced the e-mail id of 1^st opposite party and notice was served on them.  But they did not appear or file their version.  So they were set ex-parte. 

2^nd opposite party entered appearance and filed version.  They also filed an application IA/64/22 to delete them from party array and it was allowed.  2^nd opposite party is removed from party array as per order dated 17/10/2022 in IA/64/22.

Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts. A1 to A4 were marked from her side. 

Evidence closed and heard.  Complainant filed notes of argument.

3.   Complaint averment is to the effect that the complainant booked a ticket with the 1^st opposite party for travelling from Delhi to Warsaw on 15^th August 2021 and paid Rs. 37,623/- as ticket charges.  On that day when she was waiting at the Airport, the staff of the opposite party refused the boarding pass stating that she was overstayed in Delhi.  She had a valid ticket and valid work permit and the Polish authorities were ready to accommodate her.  The opposite parties did not make any alternative arrangements for travel in next flight or refund the ticket amount.

4.   The complainant produced the computer printout of the ticket issued by 1^st opposite party for travelling from Delhi Indira Gandhi International (DEL) to Frankfurt Frankfurt (FRA).  In this ticket fare is shown as INR 37,623/- and the Ticket status is shown as Confirmed. 

5.   In an e-mail dated 20/08/2021 the opposite party had replied that the complainant was not allowed to board due to overstay in India.

      Their reply is that “As per our information, passengers were off loaded in consultation with Germal ALO (Airline Liaison Office) due to overstay outside Poland.  As per German Law, resident of other Schingen members who have stayed outside their country for more than one year are not allowed to enter Schingen area through Germany even if the residence permit is valid.  They can enter their country directly.”

6.   Ext. A2 is the reply from Lufthansa (1^st opposite party) when the complainant asked for the refund of the ticket amount.  In this reply, they have stated that “Refund of your ticket would be processed as per fare rules only.  Upon checking, we find that your ticket is issued under a non-refundable fare; hence refund of only unused taxes is permitted.

      Refund takes 6-7 weeks for amount to reflect in your card account.

      For compensation, passenger needs to contact the Customer Relations Team only.”

      The complainant had stated in her affidavit that no amount has been refunded by the opposite party till now.

7.   According to the complainant, she had a valid visa and work permit and the Polish Government was ready to accommodate her.  Further she travelled to her destination by another flight.

8.   Even after receipt of notice, the 1^st opposite party failed to appear before this Commission and enlighten this Commission regarding the cause and grounds of refusal of refund.  In the absence of any contra evidence, we presume that the prima facie evidence as conclusive regarding deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party.

10. Consequently the opposite party is bound to compensate the complainant for their deficiency in service.  The complainant had suffered great mental agony when her travel got cancelled at the last moment.  This made her to stay in Delhi to arrange another flight.  All these caused additional financial burden to her.  This made her file this complaint also. 

      In the result, the complaint is allowed.

      We direct the opposite parties to

1. Refund the ticket amount of Rs. 37,623/- with interest at 10% from 15/08/2021 till realization.
2. To pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for their deficiency in service Rs. 20,000/- for the mental agony and other inconveniences caused to the complainant and to pay Rs. 15,000/- as cost of the litigation.

The opposite parties shall comply with the directions in this order within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which opposite party shall pay to the complainant Rs. 250/- per month or part thereof until the date of payment in full and final settlement of this order.

Pronounced in open court on this the 20^th day of April, 2023.

                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                                    Vinay Menon V

                                                                                President                                                       

                                                                                    Sd/-

              Vidya.A

                             Member   

                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                                  Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                           Member

APPENDIX

Documents marked from the side of the complainant:

Ext. A1: Flight ticket dated 15/08/2021.

Ext. A2: E-mail dated 27/08/2021.

Ext. A3: Reply mail from Lufthansa.

Documents marked from the side of opposite parties: Nil

Witness examined from the complainant’s side: Nil

Witness examined from the opposite parties side: Nil

Cost- Rs. 15,000/-

NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.