3. To substantiate their respective cases, the parties have filed their affidavits and documents. The arguments were heard.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are:-
- Whether there is deficiency in service?
- What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are:-
Point (A) & (B): As per the final order
For the following:-
REASONS
POINT (A) to (B):-
6. In this case originally only opposite party No.1 was impleaded as opposite party and not the opposite party No.2. After the pleadings were compleated, after the evidence were completed, after the arguments were heard and reserved for orders, this Forum noticed that, the airlines is not a party to the proceedings and the matter was posted to hear regarding impleading of the airlines. At that juncture on the application of the complainant the notice being served on the opposite party No.2 the opposite party No.2 was impleaded as opposite party this is very much important to know.
7. Anyway reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits and documents on record, it is established that the husband of the complainant Sri. M.L. Pincha had booked through e-mail an e-ticket for his wife on 03.01.2011 for her journey from Sharjah to Jaipur from opposite party No.1 of the airlines of the opposite party No.2 for her journey on 09.03.2011 that’s all. Here the opposite party No.1 is only a travel agent and he did his job i.e., booking of the air ticket of the concerned airlines as per the instructions and request of the complainant that has been done. Hence there cannot be any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1. His role is ceased when once the ticket is booked and it is confirmed. Thus in booking the ticket there is no deficiency in service or there is no negligence on the part of the opposite party No.1 is there. The rest of the transaction is between the complainant and the opposite party No.2 if there is any deficiency in service on the opposite party No.2 then it is the opposite party No.2 who is responsible and not opposite party No.1. Hence let us probe further.
8. In this case the entire grievance of the complainant is that on the date of journey on 09.03.2011 when she reported at the Sharjah airport she was not allowed to travel and she was given the inter office records by the authorities of the opposite party No.2; the records of 04.01.2011, 21.01.2011 and 09.03.2011. The relevant inter office correspondence of 04.01.2011, 21.01.2011 and 09.03.2011 reads thus:-
“On January 4, 2011, the complainant herself got the ticket preponed from March 9, 2011 to February 11, 2011 directly through Air Arabia as evident from the PNR Modification history (already on record and as provided by the Air Arabia)
On the preponed date i.e. February 11, 2011 the complainant was a ‘no show’ i.e. she did not reach the airport to board on the flight;
The complainant despite changing/modifying the booking of the tickets from march 9, 2011 to February 11, 2011 had reached the Airport on March 9, 2011 to board the flight; when Air Arabia rightly declined her boarding; for the reasons as evident from the documentary records placed on records”
That is to say she was informed that on 04.01.2011 her booking of 09.03.2011 was preponed to 11.02.2011 and she did not travel on 11.02.2011 hence she was not allowed to travel on 09.03.2011 and the modified date was also viewed in the internet on 21.01.2011 by her husband who has got the preponment done.
9. The details of the conversation between the husband of the complainant and the representative of the opposite party No.2 reads thus:-
a) Call register No call-2011-01-04_00c401e1c 35d512b_40006_ 3960_09980160112_pcmu.rar
Vaishali (Call centre executive of OP No.2); Yes sir I had received your mail and you had send only a mail, but you didn’t send passport copy of the passenger as we as E-ticket.
M L Pincha: E-ticket I send you, but regarding passport original passport with the copy of the lying with Visa people you say ….
Vaishali: I am very sorry sir but I cannot do because without your documents without your e mail ….
After ten minutes Mr Pincha called
b) Call register NoCall_2011-01-04_00c401e1c35d514c _4006_3960_09980160112_pcmu.ra
Vaishali: Sir……..so kindly request you call us just back ……..without mail sir I am not able to modification………….so you just call us back……….
After half an hour
c) Call register No call_2011-01-04_00c401e1c35d5168_40015_3960_09980160112_pcmu.rar
Pincha: Have you got my revised instructions
Vaishali: yes sir…….shall I go ahead and confirm your modification its 11th February .
Pincha; Please confirmation……..
Vaishali: It’s Sharjah to Jaipur sir you modification now has been done…now passenger traveled dated is 11th February … and you have to pay entire amount at airport…. At the time of check-in 140 dirhams in Indian currency 1750 rupees.
This clearly goes to show that on 04.01.2011 the husband of the complainant Mr. Pincha had telephoned to the authorities of the opposite party No.2 and got the journey of his wife i.e., the complainant preponed. That Mr. Pincha the husband of the complainant has not appeared before this Forum nor challenged the statements of the opposite parties made in this regard. The complainant never stated anything regarding this pre-ponment of the journey to 11.02.2011 nor denied it. When she had been given this e-mail if it were to be false she would have challenged it at the airport at Sharjah but that has not been done. Why there is no answer. She could have asked her husband to explain this, that has not been done, hence her contention that on the date of the journey she was refused to board or check-in by the personnel of the opposite party No.2 is negligent or deficiency in service cannot be accepted.
10. However all these transactions of pre-poning was not done by the complainant. Admittedly it was done by her husband. When that the case the complainant would have been informed by the opposite party No.2 regarding the change of journey or pre-ponement of journey from 09.03.2011 to 11.02.2011 on 04.01.2011 itself, but that has not been done. Anyway on 09.03.2011 when the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 at Sharjah they would have certainly asked her to pay little more amount for changing and modification of journey and would have allowed her to travel in their aircraft on 09.03.2011 or asked her to take another flight of their company on 10.03.2011 if it were to be booked, that has not been done. Here a single lady travelling from Sharjah to Jaipur. The opposite party No.2 would have been more considerate when she has approached them at Sharjah on 09.03.2011. They would have informed her about the mischief done by her husband and could have asked the complainant to pay little more amount so that they could accommodate her in the same aircraft or on the next day so that she could get back to India. The counsel for the opposite party No. streneoussly contended that the opposite party was not asked by the complainant for the next day journey or on any other day journey. This is an untenable contention. None of the officials of the opposite party at Sharjah had filed the affidavit stating that what is the conversation that took place between the complainant and the opposite party No.2? When the opposite party No.2 could produce the CD of conversation dated: 04.01.2011 recorded between the complainant’s husband and its officials, why it has not produced the CD of the talk that took place between the complainant and the opposite party on 09.03.2011 at Sharjah? This clearly goes to show that to this extent there is deficiency in service on the part o the opposite party No.2. Under these circumstances it is the complainant and her husband who are responsible for this primarily they have to blame to certain extent. Here the air ticket from Sharjah to Jaipur is Rs.8,452/- that has been paid by the complainant to Air India. Under these circumstances if we deduct 20% of this amount and ask the remanding amount to be paid by the opposite party No.2 to the complainant we think that will meet the ends of justice. The complainant is not entitled to any other amount since she and her husband are responsible for pre-poning of the journey. The opposite party No.2 shall not enrich itself at the cost of the other persons when the complainant has not travelled in the aircraft of the opposite party. Naturally she is entitled to refund of certain amount from the opposite party No.2 for the reason we have discussed supra. There is no proof to show that, the opposite party No.2 had kept the seat of the complainant on 11.02.2011 vacant and it incurred loss to that extent, nor it has shown the details of seats in the aircraft on 09.03.2011 to the effect that the aircraft was full and there was no seat at all. Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The complaint is Allowed-in-part as against opposite party No.2.
2. The opposite party No.2 is directed to pay Rs.6,761.60 paise to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.
3. The opposite party No.2 is also directed to pay the costs of this litigation of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.
4. The complaint is dismissed with respect to opposite party No.1 with costs. The complainant is directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as costs of this litigation to opposite party No.1.
5. The opposite party No.2 is directed to send the amounts as ordered at Serial Nos. 2 & 3 to the complainant through DD by registered post acknowledgment due and the complainant is directed to send the amount as ordered above at serial No.4 to the opposite party No.1 and both parties shall submit the compliance report to this Forum with necessary documents within 45 days from the date of this order.
6. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
7. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 20th Day of August 2011)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
