BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

R.R. Badyal son of B.D. Badyal resident of #5150/2, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

….…Complainant

V E R S U S

1.  Monsoon Travels through its Manager/Proprietor, SCO 103-104, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

Opposite Party

2.  S.S. Tours and Travels through its Manager/Proprietor, SCO 210-211, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

3.  Kingfisher Airlines through its Manager, Chandigarh Office, SCO 59-60, Sector 9-D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

4.  Air India through its Manager Chandigarh Office, SCO 162-164, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

… Performa Opposite Parties.

CORAM:        SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER

              MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

Argued by:       Sh. Ashish Gupta, Adv. for complainant.

                OPs 1 & 2 exparte

Sh.Y.S. Dhillon, Adv. for OP-3

Sh. S.R. Chaudhuri, Adv. for OP-4

PER MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

             By this order we propose to dispose of the following two connected consumer complaints in which the following questions of law and fact are involved :-

a)  C.C. No.268 of 2010-R.R. Badyal Vs. Monsoon Travels & Ors.

b)  C.C. No.269 of 2010-V.K. Sharma Vs. Monsoon Travels & Ors.

2.        The facts may be gathered from C.C. No.268 of 2010-R.R. Badyal Vs. Monsoon Travels & Ors.
3.        Briefly stated, the complainant is working as Assistant General Manager in NABARD, Chandigarh. He booked one LTC tour through OP-1 for Chandigarh-Delhi-Chennai-Port Blair-Chennai-Delhi from 22.1.2010 to 27.1.2010 for himself and his family. He gave cheque dated 8.12.2009 of Rs.2,74,514/- for the tickets which was duly encashed by the OP.  In lieu of the payment, the OP issued him an internet printout of tickets of the Kingfisher Airlines.  However, to his utter surprise OP-1 later on cancelled the tickets.  When the complainant contacted OP-1 they assured him that he would get an equivalent package from the Indian Airlines in lieu of the cancelled tickets for which he gave his consent.  However, OP-1 never gave any booking slips.

              Then the complainant himself obtained the booking slips from the Indian Airlines office at Chandigarh. He came to know that the booked tickets had cost Rs.1,96,400/-.  When the complainant enquired about the excess balance amount of Rs.78,114/- from OP-1 they neither gave any satisfactory reply nor refunded the amount.  Thereafter he sent letter dated 18.1.2010 to the OP-1 and requested for cancellation of the tickets and sought refund of the amount of Rs.2,74,514/- by deducting the cancellation charges as per the rules but the OP-1 did not pay any heed even in spite of service of legal notice dated 4.2.2010.  Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OP-1 caused him mental and physical harassment and amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

4.        Summons sent to OP-1 were received back with the report of refusal and since refusal is sufficient service and none appeared on their behalf, hence they were proceeded against exparte.
5.        OP-2 did not appear despite due service, hence they were proceeded against exparte.  
6.        In their written reply OP-3 denied that  they received any payment from the complainant.  It has been submitted that on 10.12.2009 OP-1 i.e. the agent of the complainant created the PNRs on their reservation system for travel from 22.1.2010 & 27.1.2010 but the process of booking confirmed tickets was only completed when the passenger/his travel agent makes the payment and a confirmed ticket is issued by the concerned airline.  It has been stated that the mere creation of PNR by the agent on the system does not entitle the passenger to avail the services of the said airline.  It has been denied that there was any cancellation of the tickets as the same were never booked. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 
7.        OP-4 in their separate written reply submitted that the entire allegations in the complaint  with regard to cancellation of his bookings without his consent, tickets issued for lesser value than the amount received, and non refund of the amount paid, were mainly against OP-1. However, it has been submitted that the complainant could not avail the LTC fares because he himself cancelled his bookings vide communication dated 18.1.2010.  Pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
8.        Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
9.        We have heard the ld. counsel for the contesting parties and have also perused the record. 
10. The complainant in order to prove that he has made the payment of Rs.2,74,514/- to the OP through cheque No.398639 has placed on record copies of Invoice dated 11.12.2009 (Annexure C-1), and receipt dated 10.12.2009 (Annexure C-2) as well as the account statement of Axis Bank (Annexure C-3).
11. The complainant has alleged that after receiving the aforesaid amount, the OP-1 issued him an internet printout (Annexure C-4 Colly.) of  the ticket of Kingfisher Airlines bearing confirmation for the Chandigarh-Delhi-Chennai-Port Blair-Chennai-Delhi  sector from 22.1.2010 to 27.1.2010 in his name as well as in the name of his family.  It has been further alleged by the complainant that subsequently the OP-1 cancelled the booking on its own and instead booked tickets for him in the Indian Airlines which cost Rs.1,96,400/- only but they did not refund him the balance amount of Rs.78,114/-.  Despite oral and written requests by the complainant the amount was not refunded.  He thus cancelled the booking and sought refund.  The complainant has filed an affidavit in support of his averments.
12. The entire allegations in the complaint are mainly leveled against OP-1 but they refused to receive the summons sent to them and hence were proceeded against exparte. It seems that they are aware of the wrong committed by them and have nothing to say in the matter, which is why they chose to stay away and not accept the summons, or even put in appearance before this Forum. Hence the case set up by the complainant goes unrebutted and the OP-1 is proved to be deficient in service.  As neither any relief has been sought nor proved against OPs 2 to 4, who are merely arrayed as proforma parties, so the complaint qua them is dismissed with no order as to costs.
13. In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the complaint is allowed and the OP-1 is directed to-

a)  refund the entire amount deposited by the complainant i.e. Rs.2,74,514/-. No deduction of the statutory charges for cancellation have to be borne by him either. 

b)  pay Rs.15,000/- as damages to the complainant for the harassment caused to him, and Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

14. Similar directions are passed in the connected consumer complaint No.269 of 2010 except that the amount deposited by the complainant in that case is Rs.2,55,771/-.
15. This order be complied with by the OP-1 within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order failing which they would be liable to pay the entire amount with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the order till actual payment to the complainant.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.