Ramneet Moudgil, R/o #440, Sector 15-A, Chandigarh.

              -Complainant

Vs.

1.   Go Airlines (through its Manager), Airport Office, Civil Airport, Airport Authority of India, Zirakpur Road, Near Behlana, Chandigarh.

2.   M/s Airpark International (Travel Agent), Sector 17, Chandigarh.

- Opposite Parties

BEFORE:   SH. RAJAN DEWAN              PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA            MEMBER

SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU    MEMBER

Argued By:    Sh. Mohan Singh Ghuman, Counsel for Complainant.

           Sh. Paras Money Goyal, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1.

           None for Opposite Party No.2.

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1.          In short, the Complainant purchased air ticket of Go Airlines by paying Rs.17,942/-, through Opposite Party No.2, to travel from Chandigarh to Goa and back (Ticket Annexure C-1). The air journey from Chandigarh was to commence on 29.12.2012 and the return journey ex-Goa was scheduled to be undertaken by her on 02.01.2013. Unfortunately, her father-in-law fell seriously ill and had to be admitted in Fortis Hospital, Mohali on 22.12.2012, where he breathed his last on 18.01.2013 (Death Certificate Annexure C-2). The Complainant informed the Opposite Party No.2 about the sudden illness of her father-in-law, who in turn communicated the same to Opposite Party No.1 with a request to delete the name of the Complainant and refund ticket as per policy vide e-mail dated 24.02.2013 (Annexure C-3). In response, Opposite Party No.1 requested the Complainant to give some time to revert shortly vide e-mail dated 26.2.2013 (Annex.C-4). The Complainant kept on waiting for further communication from Opposite Party No.1, but to no avail. Eventually, the Complainant sent an e-mail notice dated 13.03.2013 to Opposite Party No.1 to refund the tickets, but received no response, which according to the Complainant amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint. 

2.          Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

3.          Opposite Parties No.1 in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that an e-mail Annexure R-1 was received through one Mangal Singh, with a request that two persons want to postpone their journey, which was followed by a reminder from the same person through e-mail Annexure R-2. However, as the seats were not available, the modification in the traveling dates was not possible; the supporting e-mail to this effect is Annexure R-3 (colly). The e-mail dated 24.2.2013 annexed by the Complainant as Annexure C-3 was never marked to the answering Opposite Party. Immediately after receipt of the e-mail dated 26.02.2013, answering Opposite Party wrote back to the Complainant asking for some time to look into the matter. The Opposite Party No.2 was informed well in time about the non-availability of the seats on the fresh dates given by the Opposite Party No.2. The Opposite Party No.2 was communicated orally; however, the mails exchanged by the Opposite Parties with their different officials upon the request of the Opposite Party No.2 are at Annexure R-3 (colly). The flight manifest showing that only 03 passengers including the Complainant were reflected as no shown meaning thereby that the flight was not fully booked and there were vacant seats (Annexure R-4).  Denying other allegations of the Complainant, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

4.          Opposite Party No.2, in its reply, maintained that the Complainant had approached it to buy 18 tickets from Chandigarh to Goa and back. As on that date, online web fare of Go Airlines was very high, the Complainant was offered a very special group rate at a very lower price, to which she agreed. Accordingly, on 08.12.2012, the answering Opposite Party issued all the tickets with full payment. On 24.12.2012, the Complainant had sent mail for cancellation of two tickets for travelling on 29.12.2012. It is asserted that as per Go Airline Policy, the cancellation done within 7 days prior to the departure would attract 100% cancellation charges for group fare tickets. The Complainant has claimed that she has informed in advance, but it was not sufficient time, as it was less than 7 days as per refund policy. The reason for cancelling the tickets was only medical grounds on the date of travel and it was totally in the hands of Airline to give the refund or not. Also, the Complainant has claimed that the flight on that date was full that too answering Opposite Party cannot determine or check on its end as the entire record for this was with the Airline only. The Complainant has directly approached the Go Airlines for the refund of these tickets and answering Opposite Party has not received any amount from the Go Airlines for the refund of these tickets. Denying other allegations of the Complainant, Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

5.          Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

6.          On 28.10.2013, when the case was fixed for arguments, none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2. Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of this complaint on merits under Rule 4 (8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13(2) of the Act (as amended upto date) even in the absence of opposite party No.2.

7.          We have heard the learned counsel for the Complainant and Opposite Party No.1 and have perused the record. 

8.          The Complainant has preferred the present complaint against the Opposite Parties on account of non-refund of his airlines ticket for his travel to Goa and back to commence on 29.12.2012 by paying an amount of Rs.17,942/-. The return journey was to commence on 2.1.2013. The Complainant’s close relative having taken ill on 22.12.2012, compelled her to make changes in her tour programme, which she promptly informed to Opposite Party No.2 and the same was conveyed to Opposite Party No.1 vide e-mail dated 24.12.2012. The refund of the ticket too was demanded through this communication. Thus, according to the Complainant this intimation is as many as 05 days in advance to the date of departure i.e. 29.12.2012.

9.          The Opposite Party No.1 claims that the request from the Complainant’s side was received on 26.2.2013 and the answering Opposite Party took some time to investigate the matter. The Complainant on the date of departure of the journey was declared as ‘no show’. It is further claimed that the Complainant is not entitled for the refund of the ticket amount, as the request from the side of the Complainant as per Annexure R-1 was for the postponement of their journey and not for the cancellation for which refund could be made. The other Annexures R-2 and R-3 (colly) have been cited in support of its claim. The Opposite Party No.1 thus challenged the claim of refund though the Complainant had preferred for postponement or re-scheduling of her tour to a future date.

10.        The Opposite Party No.2 on its part has filed a brief reply claiming that on 24.12.2012, the Complainant had sent e-mail for cancelling two tickets for her travel on 29.12.2012 but as per the GO Airline Policy, the cancellation done within 07 days prior to departure would attract 100% cancellation charges for group fare tickets. It is further claimed that the refund policy of the Go Airlines is in the same pattern as is followed by each and every airlines with regard to group fare tickets. It is claimed that though the Complainant had sufficient time at her hand, but preferred to inform it only 05 days in advance. As such, the request being beyond the 07 days requirement of prior cancellation, the request was not honored by the airlines and hence, Opposite Party No.2 is not liable for any such claim raised through the present complaint.

11.        We have perused the documents tendered by the Opposite Parties minutely. While going through the Annexures R-1 to R-5, it is revealed from the details of Annexure R-5 that any request for the cancellation is required to be made 24 hrs prior to the departure and there are different slabs of cancellation charges, which a customer would be liable to pay, in case the request of such cancelation is made either 24 hrs before or within 24 hrs and 2 hrs prior to departure and such refund would be subject to the deductions of the taxes and surcharges, as applicable. There is no clause with regard to 7 days prior notice before the date of departure for such a cancellation as claimed by Opposite Party No.2. Even the mode of such communication with regard to the cancellation, as mentioned in the terms and conditions (Annexure R-5), is categorically mentioned as through the Travel Agent. In the present case, the Complainant having conveyed her difficulty 5 days in advance through an e-mail dated 24.12.2012 was well before the required 24 hrs advance notice from the date of departure of the flight in question. Hence, the Complainant had fulfilled the necessary qualification in order to claim her rightful refund. The claim of refund by the Complainant is thus held to be genuine and should have been honoured by the Opposite Parties, rather than denying it and compelling her to knock the doors of this Forum. 

12.        The reply of Opposite Party No.2 though mentions that the Go Airlines policy mandates a 7 days prior notice for any cancellation and breach of such condition would attract 100% cancellation charges for group fare tickets. Opposite Party No.2 has not annexed any such terms and conditions, along with its reply, so as to make us believe that such a condition existed to disqualify the Complainant for her entitlement of refund, which she has registered 5 days prior to her departure for Goa. Interestingly, the authorization letter tendered by Mr. Davinder Pal on the company letter head discloses that the Opposite Party No.2 was only an authorized agent of Kingfisher Airlines, Jet Airways, IndiGo, Air India, JetLite and Spicejet only. There is no proof that Opposite Party No.2 was an authorized agent of Go Airlines for which it had sourced the airline tickets for the Complainant. The claim of Opposite Party No.2 that the Complainant had directly approached the Go Airlines for the refund of these tickets, but the e-mail (Annexure C-3) is clearly addressed to it and an e-mail of the same date i.e. 24.12.2012 from its office to the office of Opposite Party No.1 clearly mentions the request of deletion of the name of Sh. Rajiv Moudgil and Ms. Ramneet Moudgil from the list of Goa Trip as the father of Sh. Rajiv Moudgil is very serious and is admitted in Fortis Hospital, Mohali. This communication clearly indicates that Opposite Party No.2 was in the full knowledge of the request of refund made by the Complainant, as it had itself forwarded this request to Opposite Party No.1. Hence, Opposite Party No.2 cannot absolve itself of its responsibilities in the entire episode. Even the denial of refund for the reason of the request having made in less than 7 days time from the date of departure also stands fortified from Annexure R-5 which is the terms & conditions of the Go Airlines. Hence, we feel that Opposite Party No.2 too is liable for deficiency in service towards the Complainant in not having helped her in her cause of refund, rather than went on to contest the claim on flimsy grounds and strengthened the hands of Opposite Party No.1 for reasons best known to it. As the stand of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 is found to be divergent and in no manner denies the Complainant of her rightful refund, hence, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 are together found deficient in rendering proper service to the Complainant.

13.        In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, jointly and severally, and the same is allowed, qua it. The Opposite Parties are is directed to:-

[a]  To refund the amount of air tickets i.e. Rs.17,942/- to the Complainant; 

[b]  To pay Rs.10,000/-on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and harassment to the Complainant; 

[C] To pay Rs.7,000/- as cost of litigation;

14.        The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @18% p.a. on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] of Para 13 above, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.7,000/-, from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid. 

15.        The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

31^st October, 2013                             

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER