STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. | : | 247 of 2012 |
Date of Institution | : | 24.07.2012 |
Date of Decision | : | 03.12.2012 |
Rakesh Jain son of Sh.Jaswant Rai Jain, R/o H.No.3057, Sector 28-D, Chandigarh.
……Appellant/complainant
V e r s u s
1] M/s Amazing Holidays, SCO 100-101, Ground Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh-160022, through its Prop./Partner Sh.Gurpreet Singh
2] Sahibji Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd., 68/2276, Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005, through its Managing Director.
....Respondents/Opposite Parties
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. Neeraj Sobti, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh. Neeraj Pal Sharma, Advocate for respondent no.1.
Sh. Baljeet Singh, Advocate for respondent no.2.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT
This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.06.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it disposed of the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant) and directed the Opposite Parties (now respondents), as under:-
“Henceforth, keeping in view the entirety of the case, foregoing discussion as well as findings, we deem it appropriate to direct the OPs to refund the balance amount of the complainant i.e.Rs.24,867/-, if not yet paid, along with interest 9% p.a. w.e.f. 15.1.2011 (the date when e-mail was sent to OP-2 seeking cancellation of flight and refund of full amount) till its actual payment. There is no order as to compensation or costs. The complaint stands disposed of in above terms”.
2. The facts, in brief, are that, on being allured by the promise/assurance, made by Opposite Party No.1, for booking of 200 air tickets, from Delhi to Goa, in a single Aircraft or to get a Chartered Plane booked, the complainant, deposited an amount of Rs.3.60 lacs, in the account of Opposite Party No.2. The Opposite Parties, instead of honouring their promise, booked the air tickets, in different flights, having different time of departure from Delhi and different time of arrival at Goa. This act of the Opposite Parties was bound to cause grave inconvenience and harassment, not only to the esteemed guests of the complainant, but to him also. It was stated that, on account of the unprofessional approach of the Opposite Parties, the complainant was constrained to cancel the function at Goa, and other hotel bookings, which caused him huge losses, harassment, as well as humiliation. However, the complainant sought refund of the entire amount, deposited by him, from the Opposite Parties, but to no avail. It was further stated that even a legal notice was served upon the Opposite Parties, to settle the grievance of the complainant, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties, to refund the amount of Rs.3,60,000/-, alongwith interest.
3. Opposite Party No.1, in its written version, pleaded that, it only assisted the complainant, to seek a travel Agent of repute, at New Delhi, for the purpose of booking of 200 Air Tickets. It was denied that it ever sought or was paid any consideration, by the complainant, for this assistance. It was stated that the complainant wanted to accommodate all 200 passengers/guests, in one solitary flight, which was technically and physically not possible, as none of the three low cost domestic Airlines (Go Air, Spice Jet and Indigo) operated an aircraft, which could have carried 200 passengers, in one go. It was further denied that it ever advised the complainant, to book the Chartered Plane or gave any assurance, that seats for all 200 guests, would be booked, in one single flight. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.2, had received the advance sum of Rs.3.60 lacs, from the complainant, directly, for booking of 200 air tickets, and, thereafter, upon the telephonic instructions of the complainant, the air tickets were got cancelled, as a result whereof, the cancellation and other charges, were incurred. It was further stated that, as such, Opposite Party No.2, was liable to refund the amount, if any, to the complainant. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.1, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
4. Opposite Party No.2, in its written version, stated that Opposite Party No.1, informed the complainant, that the Chartered Plane for 200 persons was not economically and physically possible. It was further stated that, it (Opposite Party No.2), informed Opposite Party No.1 that it could arrange 200 tickets, in different flights, and this proposal was accepted by the complainant, as intimated by Opposite Party No.1. It was further stated that, the amount of Rs.3.60 lacs, was deposited by Opposite Party No.1, in the account of Opposite Party No.2, and was not received, by it, directly from the complainant. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1, had sent a list of 23 persons, by name, on 08.01.2011, whose tickets were booked by it, on the same day, in Go-Airlines. Again, on the request of Opposite Party No.1, 177 seats, in different Airlines (Indigo and Spice Jet), were booked by it, against payment of 25% of the amount. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.2, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice, as the complainant had changed his programme, due to his personal problems. It was further stated that since all the tickets were got cancelled, by the complainant, it attracted the cancellation charges, amounting to Rs.2,69,250/- apart from airlines transaction fee/charges of Rs.65,883/-, totaling to Rs.3,35,133/- (Ann.A-2 colly). The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
5. The District Forum recorded that the Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
6. Since, none appeared, on behalf of the complainant, after hearing the Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, disposed of the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the appellant/complainant.
8. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
9. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the complainant was assured by the Opposite Parties that they will arrange 200 air tickets, in one single flight, for Delhi-Goa-Delhi, as the booking of a Chartered Plane will not be economical. He further submitted that relying upon the said assurance made by them, a sum of Rs.3,60,000/, as the charges of air tickets, were deposited, in advance, by the complainant, in the account of Opposite Party No.2, on 07.01.2011. He further submitted that, instead of honoring their commitment, 200 seats were booked, in different flights, having different time of departure and arrival, from Delhi to Goa. He further submitted that, on account of this reason, a lot of inconvenience/ harassment would have been caused to the passengers/ guests, as also the complainant. He further submitted that, it was, under these circumstances, that the complainant was compelled to cancel the scheduled flight for Goa, as well as hotels, and, subsequently, sought refund, from the Opposite Parties, in respect of the amount, deposited by him, towards booking of 200 air tickets aforesaid. He further submitted that, thus, the complainant had to suffer a lot of humiliation and financial loss, on account of the acts of omission and commission, on the part of the Opposite Parties. He further submitted that, as such, the entire amount, deposited by the complainant, was required to be refunded by the Opposite Parties, but they agreed to refund a sum of Rs.24,867/- only. He further submitted that even, an offer of discount was given by the Opposite Parties, in the cancellation charges, but they did not, abide by their commitment. He further submitted that even as per the offer of discount, given by the Opposite Parties, the complainant was entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/-, instead of Rs.24,867/-. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal and invalid, is liable to be set aside.
10. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents, submitted that no assurance, whatsoever, was given to the complainant, for booking of 200 seats, in one flight, as no low cost domestic Airline was operating any Aircraft from Delhi to Goa, which had the capacity of 200 seats. They further submitted that it was, under these circumstances, that the seats were booked, in three Aircrafts, as per the consent of the complainant, and, he, thus, deposited the amount aforesaid. They further submitted that the complainant got cancelled the air tickets, and, as such, the cancellation charges, by the Airlines, were to be received. They further submitted that the complainant changed his programme, on account of his personal problems. They further submitted that, thus, there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice.
11. The first question, that falls, for consideration, is, as to whether, any assurance was made by the Opposite Parties, for booking of 200 seats, in one Aircraft, for the guests of the complainant, from Delhi to Goa, or not. Except the bald assertions, made by the complainant, in the complaint and, in his affidavit, no document was produced by the complainant, to show that any such written assurance was given by the Opposite Parties, that 200 seats, would be booked, in one Aircraft. Under these circumstances, the bald assertions, of the complainant, in the complaint, as also in his affidavit, did not carry any weight. Even otherwise, it was established from the evidence, on record, that no Aircraft, having the capacity of 200 seats, was flying from Delhi to Goa, at the relevant time. It was, on account of this reason, that 23 seats were booked, in Go Airlines, on 08.01.2011, on receipt of list of those persons, from Opposite Party No.1, by Opposite Party No.2. Again 177 seats were booked, in Indigo and Spice Jet Aircrafts, on the request of Opposite Party No.1, by Opposite Party No.2, and, this arrangement was also accepted by the complainant. On 13.01.2011, as is evident, from Annexure OP/5, at page 60 of the District Forum file, a message was sent by the complainant, for cancellation of the wedding group tickets from Delhi-Goa-Delhi. This fact further finds mention, in the email dated 15.01.2011, sent at 08.01 P.M., by the complainant to Amazing Holidays (Opposite Party No.1), the relevant portion of which reads as under:-
“We had already informed u about the cancellation on 13th Jan as we were not interested in the way flight schedule was made. So we scrapped our destination program and informed you. We already intimated you on time.
Please refund the full amount with nominal service charge deductions. I request you not to bitter our association, so that our future relations are retained”
12. There is nothing, in this email, that the Opposite Parties had assured the complainant, for booking of 200 air tickets, in one Aircraft, but they did not abide by the same. Had such a promise been made by the Opposite Parties, to the complainant, mention thereof would have been clearly made, in this email. This email, therefore, goes to substantiate the stand taken by the Opposite Parties, that they never promised to book 200 air tickets, for the guests of the complainant, in one Aircraft. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, to the effect, that the complainant was assured by the respondents/Opposite Parties, that all the seats shall be booked in one Aircraft, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
13. The next question, that arises for consideration, is, as to how much amount, on account of cancellation of the air tickets, was payable to the complainant. It is evident from the email dated 13.01.2011 at 5.32 P.M. sent by the Raunaq-Sahibji Travels & Tours Pvt.Ltd., (Opposite Party No.2), to Amazing Holidays (Opposite Party No.1), which reads as under:-
“As per telephonic conversation regarding the cancellation of wedding group tickets del-goi-del 200 pax the above are the cancellation charges.
Per way cancellation charges-Rs.750+Rs.100 (our service charge)
So for both side per ticket cancelation charge is= Rs.1700/-.
But as per your request to reduce the service charges now u have to pay=Rs.1600 per ticket”
14. According to the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, since no response, to this email was given by the complainant, and, as such, the offer which was given by them, that the cancellation charges, by reducing services charges, were to be paid @Rs.1600 per ticket, stood cancelled. The submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Parties does not appear to be correct. In his email dated 15.01.2011, sent at 08.01P.M., to Amazing Holidays (Opposite Party No.1), the complainant, in clear-cut terms, stated that he had already informed them, about the cancellation of tickets on 13.01.2011. It means, that the email Annexure OP/5, referred to above, was duly responded to by the complainant. Under these circumstances, the submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, that no response to the said email, was given by the complainant, does not appear to be correct. The Opposite Parties, therefore, could charge cancellation charges @Rs.1600/- per ticket and not Rs.1700/- per ticket. If the cancellation charges @Rs.1600/- per ticket are calculated, then in respect of 200 tickets, the amount comes to Rs.3,20,000/-, and, as such, the complainant was entitled to the refund of Rs.40,000/- i.e. (Rs.3,60,000/- minus(-) Rs.3,20,000/-) and not Rs.24,867/-, as granted by the District Forum. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, appears to be correct. The order of the District Forum, deserves to be modified, to this extent.
15. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.
16. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is partly accepted, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is modified, in the following manner:-
(i.) The respondents/Opposite Parties shall refund a sum of Rs.40,000/-, to the appellant/complainant, instead of Rs.24,867/- (if already not paid)as awarded by the District Forum.
(ii.) The remaining directions given and reliefs granted by the District Forum, subject to the aforesaid modification, shall remain intact.
17. Certified Copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
18. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion
Pronounced.
03.12.2012
Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
[NEENA SANDHU]
MEMBER
Rg
