Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/159/2024

SOMYA AGGARWAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

LUFTHANSA AIRLINES - Opp.Party(s)

ANKIT AGGARWAL

03 Dec 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/159/2024
Date of Institution	:	18.03.2024
Date of Decision	:	03.12.2024

 

Somya Aggarwal aged 34 years W/o Achint Aggarwal, Resident of # 3324, Sector 50-D, Chandigarh

… Complainant

V E R S U S

The Authorised Representative, Lufthansa Airlines, 2^nd floor, Novotel Pullman Hotel, Commercial Block, Asset No.2, IGI Airport, Delhi 110037 (Delhi Aerocity, GMR Hospitality)          

… Opposite Party

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Ankit Aggarwal, Advocate for complainant
	:	Sh.Kartik, Advocate for OP

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1.    The present consumer complaint has been filed by Mrs.Somya Aggarwal, complainant against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as the OP).  The brief facts of the case are as   under :-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that in July, 2023, the complainant had booked the air tickets of the OP Airlines for herself and her family members including her husband and two children on payment of Rs.3,85,155/- vide Booking Code RJPKP9 from Friedrichshafen to new Delhi on 20.12.2023 and from New Delhi to Friedrichshafen on 07.01.2024 and the copy of the air-tickets is Ann.C-1.  At the time of booking, the complainant had mentioned the date of birth of her and her family members.  The flight from New Delhi to Friedrichshafen was on 07.1.2024 via Chennai.  On 6.1.2024 when the complainant was doing web check-in then the complainant was unable to proceed with the web check-in as the website of the OP was redirecting the complainant to the website of Air India.  On 7.1.2024 the complainant along with her family members boarded the flight from New Delhi to Chennai at 8:40 P.M. and reached Chennai at 11:35 P.M.  When the complainant reached Chennai and was about to board the connecting flight from Chennai to Frankfurt at 1:50 A.M. on 08.1.2024, the complainant was shocked when the staff of OP did not allow her son Master Aaryan Aggarwal to board the flight on the ground that he has no valid ticket. The complainant informed the staff that as the complainant has mentioned date of birth of every member, which was the only requirement, but despite of that the OP did not allow the son of complainant Master Aaryan Aggarwal to board the flight, as a result of which the complainant was forced to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as charges for the ticket of his son Master Aaryana Aggarwal.  After paying an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- the complainant and her family members were allotted with different seat numbers.  In this manner, the OP had cheated the complainant and forced her to pay Rs.1,50,000/- and the OP is bound to refund the aforesaid amount. The complainant also sent legal notice Ann.C-2 to the OP. The aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. OP  was requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action and concealment of material facts. However, it is admitted that the complainant and her family members were scheduled to travel from Friedrichshafen to New Delhi via Frankfurt and Munich on 20.12.2023 and return from New Delhi to Friedrichshafen via Chennai and Frankfurt on 07.01.2024.  It is further alleged that as per OP Airline Policy, a child below the age of two years is permitted to travel on their parent’s ticket, however, a child old than two years old is required to occupy their own seats and pay 75% of total ticket price and the said condition is also available on the website of the OP.  It is further alleged that the complainant’s minor son  Aaryan Aggarwal was born on 04.01.2022 and was younger than 2 years on 20.12.2023 i.e. the date of the onward journey from Friedrichshafen to New Delhi and he traveled as per the policy as an infant free of charges.  However, on 07.01.2024  i.e. the date of the return journey, the complainant's minor son was no longer an infant as he was at the  age of more than 2 years and accordingly he was required to get his own seat and pay the child fare. Accordingly when the complainant approached the OP at counter at Chennai Airport, she was informed that her minor son is not eligible to travel as an infant and she was required to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- being 75% of the ticket price, which was accordingly paid.  The said ticket was issued to the son of the complainant as per the Airline policy.  The complainant has filed false complaint against the OP. On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been re-iterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. In replication, the complainant reiterated the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2.    In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.

3.    We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully.

1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that on the date of onwards journey from Friedrichshafen to New Delhi on 20.12.2023, the son of the complainant namely Master Aaryan Aggarwal was infant i.e. below 2 years of age as his date of birth was 04.10.2022 and on the date of return journey from New Delhi to Friedrichshafen via Chennai and Frankfurt on 07.01.2024, the said child had already crossed the age of infant i.e. he was above 2 years and the OP had charged an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- being 75% of the ticket price and then travelled from New Delhi to Friedrichshafen, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP and the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for or the OP is justified in their ac and the complaint of the complainant being false & frivolous is liable to be dismissed.
2. In the back drop of the foregoing admitted and disputed facts on record, one thing is clear that the entire case of the parties is revolving around documentary evidence and for that purpose the documents tendered by the parties are required to be scanned carefully.
3. Perusal of Ann.B indicates that as per Airline Policy, the infacnt below the age of 2 years was only to allow to travel without ticket with his parents and the children above the age of 2 years was only allowed to travel on purchase of ticket for 75% of the regular price.  The relevant portion of said policy is reproduced as under:-

“Infant fare: Babies (0-2 years) who do not occupy a seat travel free on German domestic flights and for 10 per cent of the regular fare on all other routes.

Child fare: Children aged between 2 and 11 years (up to their 12th birthday) must occupy their own seat and travel for 75 per cent of the regular price of the flight on most routes and on almost all fares. Please note that babies who turn 2 years old during the flight will be required to occupy their own seat and will be charged the child fare.”

4. As it is an admitted case of the parties that on the day of return journey i.e. on 7.1.2024 the son of the complainant namely Aaryan Aggarwal, had already crossed the age of infant i.e. above 2 years since he admittedly born on 04.01.2022, it is safe to hold that the OP has charged the fair of the ticket being 75% of the regular price from the complainant to allow Aaryan Aggarwal, to travel a per Ann.B, as it has further come on record that the aforesaid ticket of the minor was purchased on the spot. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. Accordingly the complaint deserves dismissal.

4.           In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

5.           Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.

6.           Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.                         Sd/-

Announced 03.12.2024   Om			[Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member