SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT
Complainant has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 for getting an order directing opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay Rs.18,696/- being the cancelled flight ticket charge and to pay Rs.17,932/- being the baggage charge collected from the complainant due to the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice of opposite parties 1 and 2 and to pay Rs.25,000/- being the compensation for the mental agony and financial loss sustained to the complainant.
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the OP 1 is the travel agency and OP 2 is the manager of Indigo Airline, Head office New Delhi. The complainant had booked a flight ticket to Canada through OP No.1, the complainant is that though he informed OP1 the travel agency through them booked flight ticket to fly on 11/08/2021 to Canada via Doha PNR No. GH2ZKU Indigo flight. While after it is understood that by flying through Doha the complainant sit in quarantine for 7 days. On that basis the complainant further requested to OP1 to cancel above ticket. OP No.1 had not cancelled it. Thus he sustained a loss of Rs.18,896/- by non getting the cancelled ticket charge. Further submitted that OP No.1 had re-booked another flight from Calicut to Sharjah and Sharjah to Cairo and given PNR 67641622 to the complainant, among that the complainant was assured to take baggage up to 32 Kg. But while in check in procedure, Air Arabia Authority informed him to remit Rs.17,932 as baggage charge by stating ticket charge not included the baggage charge. The complainant have put up a request before OP NO.2 on 04/09/2021 to refund the AIR flight ticket PNR No. GH2ZKV issued by OP No.2. The OP32 replied to the complainant stating that they are unable to refund the amount stating that passenger neither board the flight nor did any chance or cancellation at least 4 hours prior to the scheduled departure time. In these aspect it is understood that het OP No.1 booked PNR 67641622 without cancelling the PNR NO. GH2ZKV of OP No.2 and the OP No.1 had booked given PNR 67641622 to the complainant among that the complainant had to carry had to carry 32 Kg. along with the journey from Calicut to Sharjah and from Sharjah to Cairo. Due to the deficiency of service on the part of OP No.2 he had sustained loss of Rs.18,696/-. Due to the latches and unfair trade practice of OP No.1 the complainant had sustained loss of Rs.17,932/- being the additional baggage charge. Hence the complaint.
OP1 has not appeared and not contested the case. Hence OP1 was declared as ex-parte. After receiving notice, OP2 entered appearance and filed their written version denying the allegations of the complainant against them. In the written version OP2 contended that OP2 cannot be held liable for the acts of the complainant and or the OP No.1, as the OP2 had not received the alleged cancellation request of the tickets booked by the complainant, neither form the complainant nor the OP NO.1 being the 3rd travel agent of the complainant. Furthermore, the OP2 cannot be held liable for the acts of the complainant or its third party travel agent being OP No.1 is not cancelling the ticket within the stipulated time. It is submitted that the INdiGo CoC governs the contractual relationship between the OP vis-à-vis its customers and forms a contract between the answering OP and it customers and the terms of the IndiGo CoC are binding on both. As per the version of the complainant, the complainant allegedly cancelled ht said ticket citing reason that flying through Doha would require him to sit in quarantine for a period of 7 days and in this regard, the complainant had allegedly requested the OP NO.1 to cancel the ticket and to rebook another flight from Calicut to Sharjah. However, it is pertinent to mention herein that no request for cancelling the ticket in Flight No. 6E- 1715 was received by OP No.2 neither from the complainant or the OP No.1 on behalf of the complainant. No evidence has been provided by the complainant to substantiate the averment of the complainant that any cancellation request was made by or on behalf of the complainant to the oP2 towards cancellation of his booking under PNR Gh2ZKV. As per article 8.2 of the INdiGo CoC, the customer of the OP2 can do a tele-check- in over the phone, or can check-in online using web browser or IndiGo’s mobile Application at least 75 minutes prior to the scheduled departure of the flight and in terms of article 8.2 of the INdiGo CoC, was also under obligation to the perform a tele-check-in over the phone, or web check-in using web browser or indigo mobile application at least 75 minutes prior to the scheduled time of departure of the flight. It is pertinent to mention herein that the information pertaining to the aforesaid mandatory check-in deadline was duly communicated to the complainant by way of the ticket itineraries as well as by way of email on the registered email address of the complainant. As per the records of the OP2, the complainant had failed to report at the check-in counter of the Answering OP within the time frame stipulated in the IndiGo CoC and therefore, the complainant was declared as “No-Show”. As per article 5.3 of the INdiGo CoC and passenger booking an international flight ticket is entitled to change or cancel the tickets at least 4 hours prior to the scheduled departure of the flight however, if the passenger fails to cancel the same within such timeline No Show charges shall be applicable. Furthermore, in case of cancellation of the ticket 4 hours prior to the scheduled departure, OP2 is required to refund in accordance with the terms of the INdiGo CoC. The complainants vide email dated 04/09/2021, for the 1st time informed the Answering OP about eh cancellation of the ticket. Up on receiving the said email, the customer relationship team of the OP2 duly responded to the said email and informed the complainant that due to failure on part of the complainant in reporting to the check-in counter of the Answering Respondent, the complainant was declared “no Show”. It is submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2. Hence, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint against OP2.
At the evidence stage as the complainant is studying in outside, he has filed power of attorney with petition.
The petition was allowed. As per that P/A holder of the complainant has filed his chief affidavit and documents. P/A holder was examined as Pw1 and the documents were marked as Ext.A1 to A8 series. Pw1 was subjected to cross-examination for OP No.2. OP2 has not adduced any evidence. After that learned counsel of the complainant has filed his argument note and learned counsel of OP No.2 has made oral argument.
The 1st allegation of the complainant is that though he informed OP1, the travel agency, through them he booked flight ticket to fly on 11/08/2021 to Canada via Doha PNR No. GH2ZKU Indigo flight 7 days prior to the journey, OP No.1 had not cancelled it. Thus he sustained a loss of Rs.18896/- by non getting the cancelled ticket charge. Another allegation is that OP NO.1 had re-booked another flight from Calicut to Sharjah and Sharjah to Cairo and given PNR 67641622 to the complainant, among that the complainant was assured to take baggage up to 32 Kg. But while in check in procedure, Air Arabia Authority informed him to remit Rs.17,932 as baggage charge by stating ticket charge not included the baggage charge. Thus due to the latches and unfair trade practice of OP No.1, the complainant had sustained loss of Rs.17,932/- being the additional baggage charge. Complainant alleged that both OPs are responsible for the payment of additional charge of Rs.17932 and loss of Rs.18696 due to non-refund of flight ticket charge PNR No:GH2ZKV.
1st OP neither appeared nor contested the case alleged against him. Hence OP1 was declared as Ex-parte, case is proceeded against him as ex-parte. OP No.2 contested the case by filing written version and cross examined Pw1. The contentions of OP No.2 are that he cannot be held liable for the acts of the complainant and or the OP No.1, as the OP2 had not received the alleged cancellation request of the tickets booked by the complainant, neither from the complainant nor from the OP NO.1 being the 3rd travel agent of the complainant. Furthermore, the OP2 cannot be held liable for the acts of the complainant or its third party travel agent being OP No.1 is not cancelling the ticket within the stipulated time.
While cross-examination of Pw1, he has deposed that നിങ്ങളുടെ സൌകര്യം അനുസരിച്ച് quarantine ഒഴിവാക്കാനാണ് cancel ചെയ്തത്? അതെ. Indigo Airlines ന് അക്കാര്യത്തിൽ വീഴ്ച ഉണ്ടായില്ല? ഇല്ല. ട്രാവൽ agent -നോട് ആണ് change ചെയ്യാൻ പറഞ്ഞത്. OP No.2 നോട് ടിക്കറ്റ് cancel ചെയ്യാൻ നേരിട്ട് ഞാൻ ആവശ്യപ്പെട്ടിട്ടില്ല. യാത്രയ്ക്ക് 4 മണിക്കൂർ മുൻപെ airport ൽ report ചെയ്യണം? ശരിയാണ്. അതുപ്രകാരം നിങ്ങൾ airport ൽ പോയിട്ടില്ലെന്നും OP No.2 വിനോട് report ചെയ്തിട്ടില്ലെന്നും പറയുന്നു? ശരിയാണ്. നിങ്ങൾ 04/09/2021 നാണ് OP No.2 വിന് പരാതികൊടുക്കുന്നത്? അതെ.
Hence from the evidence of Pw1 there is no deficiency in service as alleged on the part of OP NO.2 with regard to 1st allegation raised by the complainant in the complaint.
With regard to the 2nd allegation of the payment of Rs.17932/- being the additional baggage charge to Air Arabia, Pw1 deposed that Air Arabia യും Indigo യും തമ്മില് connection ഒന്നും ഇല്ല? ഇല്ല . 29/08/2021 ന് Calicut ൽ നിന്നും പോയി? അതെ. നിങ്ങളുടെ കൈവശം 32 Kg Baggage ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നു? അതെ. Air Arabia യുടെ policy പ്രകാരം baggage charge 17,938/- രൂപ വേണം? അതെ. അതുപ്രകാരം baggage charge airport ൽ അടച്ചു. Indigo Airlines baggage charge എന്നോട് ആവശ്യപ്പെട്ടിട്ടില്ല? ഇല്ല.
Hence from the above evidence tendered by Pw1, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2, in paying Rs.17,932/- being the additional baggage charge to Air Arabia.
Since OP1 has not contested the allegations against him, we are constrained to believe the allegations of he complainant and we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the par t of OP No.1. Due to the deficiency in service of OP1 complainant had to pay Rs.17,932/- as the additional baggage charge to Air Arabia. Further due to failure on the par to OP No.1 in cancelling his flight ticket dated 11/08/2021 from Kannur the Canada Via Doha, PNR No.GH2ZKV Indigo flight, the complainant could not get refund of the said flight charge rs.18,696/- from OP NO.2 Indigo Airline by the complainant.
From the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the monetary loss of complainant f Rs.18,696+Rs.17,932 was due to the deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.
OP 2 contended that in case of cancellation of the ticket 4 hours prior to the schedule departure of the flight. From the evidence and as per terms and condition OP No.2 in exonerated from the liability.
In the result complaint is allowed. Opposite party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.18,696+17932 to the complaint. OP No.1 is further directed to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant. Opposite party No.1 shall pay the awarded amount within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Failing which the awarded amount carries interest @ 9% per annum form the date of order till realization. Complainant can execute the order as per the provision in Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Exts.
A1- Power of Attorney
A2- E – ticket dated 27/07/2021
A3- Reservation confirmed.
A4- Receipt of baggage.
A5- Copy of lawyer notice
A6- Claimed notice
A7- Reply notice
A8- Postal receipt (2 in Nos.)
Pw1-Roshith Veluthan Purushothaman-PA holder of complainant
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forward by order/
Assistant Registrar
