IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SONITPUR AT TEZPUR
District: Sonitpur
Present: Smti A. Devee
President,
District Consumer D.R Forum,
Sonitpur, Tezpur
Smt.S.Bora
Member(F)
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sonitpur
Sri P.Das
Member(Gen.)
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sonitpur
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.3/2019
1.Abhijit Das : Complainants
S/o Late Ajit Lal Das
R/o of :Polofield ,Bamungaon,Tezpur,
Dist:Sonitpur(Assam)784001
2.Anindita Das,D/o Arup Kr Das
3.Sri Gaurav Majumdar,S/o Gautam Majumdar
4.Smt Ballaree Das,D/o Late Bijan Das
5.Smti Ratna Das,W/o Late Bijon Kumar Das
6.Smti Tripti Das,W/o Sri Ashok Kumar Das
7.Smti Paramita Dey,D/o of Sri Dipak Dey
All above are residents of:-
K.B Dutta Road,Birati,Kolkata-51.
8.Sri Rajdeep Dey,S/o Chandralekha Dey
Resident of Dream Park,Sonarpur
Kolkata-109.
9.Sri Mirza Baig, S/o Rakhiman Begam
Resident of Kalindi Medinipur
West Bengal-721461.
Vs.
1.Ministry of Civil Aviation. : Opp parties
O/o the Director General of Civil Aviation
Technical Centre, Opp. Safdurjung Airport
New Delhi
2. Zoom Air
Zexus Air Services Pvt. Ltd . 148 -149 Centrum Plaza
Tower-A,Golf Course Road
DLF Phase-V,Gurgaon-122002,Haryana.
1.Airport Director : Proforma Opp. Party
Airports Authority of India,Tezpur Airport
P.O Haleswar
Dist: Sonitpur,Tezpur-Assam-784104
Appearance:
Mr.Abhijit Kar, Adv : For the Complainants
None : For the Opp. party No.1 &2
Mr. Bijoy Basumatary,Adv. : For Proforma opp. party
Date of argument : 11-07-2019
Date of Judgment : 19-08-2019
Judgment
1. The case, in brief is that the complainant Sri Abhijit Das is a permanent resident of Polofield Bamungaon, PO Tezpur,Dist: Sonitpur, Assam and the other complainants are the permanent residents of Kolkata. The complainant namely Sri Abhijit Das and his family members lodged the instant complaint before the Forum against the Ministry of Civil Aviation O/o the Director General of Civil Aviation,Technical Centre, opp. Safdurjung Airport, New Delhi, i.e, opp. party No.1 and against an Airliner namely Zoom Air, i.e., opp. party No.2 for deficiency in service. The complainant booked tour package of Annapurna Tour and Travels from 17-10-18 to 22-10-18 with intent to visit Arunachal Pradesh during Puja vacation. Then the complainant purchased online air tickets of the opp. party No.2 Zoom Air on 27-05-18 to fly from Kolkata to Tezpur on 16-10-18 and Tezpur to Kolkata on 23-10-18 by paying a sum of Rs.53,134.00 for self and his other family members as airfares through his credit card.That the service of the opp. party No.2 went off/or cancelled from July,18. When the complainant asked the opp. party to know the position of air service the opp. party No.2 informed that the service would resume soon before Durga Puja and assured the complainant to avail the service as per tickets issued. It is also stated in the complaint that the complainant No.1 purchased ticket for the same flight during the month of Sept,18 when service of the opp. party No.2 still off. On 7th October,2018 the opp. party No.2 informed the complainant that their service would not be resumed and consequently the money was refunded on 30-10-18 to the complainant. Due to said arbitrary and illogical cancellation of the flight the complainant on 08-10-18
purchased tickets from Kolkata to Guwahati and Guwahati to Kolkata for the same date from another air service provider at a much higher price for himself and his other family members. The price of the new air tickets for the complainant and his other family members is Rs.76,823/- as because as Durga Puja was nearing all the air service providers have increased their airfare by almost double or more than the price what was prevailing on 27-05-18. It is also alleged that the complainant had to undertake the travelling from Guwahati airport to Tezpur and Tezpur to Guwahati at a total cost of Rs.10,000/-. The complainant had served notice through his advocate to the opp. party No.2 but the opp. party did not turn to the demands made in the notice of demand. Thus, the complainant had filed this complaint against opp. party No.1 and 2. The opp. party No.2 is doing the business of providing air service under the strict control and command of opp. party No.1. It is alleged that opp. party No.1 failed to rise to the occasion as a regulatory authority under the statute and government functionary and remained as a mute spectator. Thus, complainants have filed this instant case alleging deficiency in service on the part of opp. party No.2 and prayed relief of a sum of Rs.31,183.00 as excess of airfare paid in to and fro journey, Rs.10,000/- for hiring vehicle from Guwahati to Tezpur and Tezpur to Guwahati and a sum of Rs.50,000/- for inconvenience meted out to the complainant and his family members and for illegal withholding the hard earned money and Rs.10,000/- for cost of litigation and therefore, in total Rs.1,01,183.00.
2. Notice was duly served upon all the opp. parties including the proforma opp. party but only the proforma opp. party against whom the Complainants have no claim, came forward and filed written version. The Forum vide order dated 03-4-19 decided to proceed with the case ex parte against opp. party No.1 and 2 as the opp. party failed to appear before the Forum to contest the case, despite due service of notice upon them and sufficient time given.
- The Complainant No.1 Sri Abhijit Das has adduced evidence on affidavit of himself as the only witness in the proceeding and exhibited 5 nos of documents viz., Tickets of Zoom Air of the 9 nos of Complainants as Ext-1, notice of demand with postal receipt as Ext-2, statement of Bank account as Ext-3, Civil Aviation Requirements as Ext-4 and Tickets of Air Asia as Ext-5. None of the opp. parties No.1 and 2 appeared to cross-examine the complainant.
- We have carefully gone through the entire materials on record including the written argument submitted by the Complainant. The Points for determination in the case are –
(i)Whether the opp. parties were deficient in their service to the complainants ?
(ii)Whether the Complainants are entitled to get relief as prayed for ?
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
As both the points are inter-related, therefore, those are taken up together for discussion and decision.
- On our careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as averred, together with the materials available on record, we find that Prima facie the averments in the complaint appears to contain the basic ingredients sufficient to constitute a case of deficiency in service. Further, the behaviour of the opp. parties No.1 and 2 in keeping themselves at bay in the case also has constrained us to draw adverse inference against the opp. parties on following points:-
(a)There was no point of pledging its service sometimes in September,2018 to the Complainant No.9 named Mirza Baig, as alleged, had operation of opp. party No.2 been suspended or had such likelihood loomed overhead the opp. party No.2;
(b)In failing to turn up to rebut the allegation in the complaint, more categorically to substantiate the fact that the opp. party No.2 was virtually in operation during September,18 when airticket was issued to the Complainant No.9 Mirza Baig and more particularly till 6th of October,2018, i.e, before giving intimation to the Complainant.
(c)Adverse inference can thus be drawn that - Had the opp. parties come forward to contest the case, the truth that- the opp. party No.2 was either non-operational or was aware of the fact of suspension and uncertainity, or for that matter non-resumption of their service, permanently or for over a considerable period of time, either at the relevant time or much before to selling the airtickets to the complainants, would have been revealed. And that despite such premonition, the opp. party arbitrarily continued to pledge their service in connivance and utter disregard to the rights and interest of the complainants, against an invalid and or uncertain service or service susceptible to be fraught with uncertainities.
(d)By selling the airtickets antidatedly, the opp. party No.2 thereby has pledged itself for an uninterrupted service to the complainant-customers. In such events, the opp. party was duty-bound to fulfill its commitment to the complainants regardless of any predicament to be confronted by it and should at best have arranged accommodation of the complainants in other flights or let the Complainants know the fact of non-resumption of flight from Kolkata-Tezpur – Tezpur-Kolkata, when in the month of July,2018 Complainant contacted the opposite party No.2 and made enquiry about the position of the flight. But in a stark display of utter disregard to its valued customers, the opp. party, acting at whims and sweet will, after withholding the money of the complainants for considerable period of about six months, left them in the lurch at the eleventh hour, leaving the Complainant to bear the brunt by purchasing tickets for their journey at excessive price.
This count alone, at the very inception constitutes deficiency in service on the part of the opp. parties within the meaning of Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act.
(e)Airfare although refunded is devoid of interest for money held w.e.f May,18 to Oct,18. The opp. party No.2 even did not deem it fair and proper to refund the witholded money of the Complainants with adequate compensation as in a gesture of goodwill, be it in form of token interest on the money for the withheld period. It is the opp. party who floated the lucrative discount scheme in airfare and had held the gullible complainants to ransom to fulfil its own interest and finally left them in the lurch at the eleventh hour. These acts of deception, and depravation meted out to the complainants by the opp. party, in our considered opinion, constitutes unfair trade practice on the part of the opp. party as service provider, within the meaning of Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, culminating in harassment and monetary loss to the complainants which is not encourageable.
6. To sum up, in view of what has been discussed and decided as above, in our considered opinion, the Complainants are entitled to compensation for deficiency in service on the part of opp. party No.2, whose arbitrary and unjust act of cancellation of its service at the eleventh hour, has caused inconvenience, harassment and monetary loss to the Complainants.
The point nos 1 and 2 for determination are accordingly answered in the affirmative.
7. Having regard to the entire facts discussed above, in our opinion, interest of justice would be best served, if the opp. party No.2 is directed to
pay a lumpsum amount of Rs.40,000/-(Rupees Forty thousand)only to the Complainant for deficiency in service, harassment, mental pain, agony etc.The opp. party No.2 is also hereby cautioned to refrain from indulging in such unfair trade practice in future.
O R D E R
In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opp. party No.2 is hereby directed to pay Rs.40,000/- for its deficient service to the Complainants within a period of 30(thirty) days of receipt of copy of the judgment and order. Default in any manner shall entail interest @ 9 % p.a on the awarded sum payable from the date of judgment and order.
Given under our hands and seal of this Forum this 19th day of August, 2019.
Written for the Forum and corrected by:
(SMT S.BORA)
Member ,Dist.Consumer D. R Forum
Sonitpur,Tezpur
We agree:- (A. DEVEE)
President
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Sonitpur,Tezpur
(Sri P.Das)
Member
