DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No.: 183 of 2010 Date of Inst: 22.03.2010 Date of Order:11.03.2011 Yashpaul Aggarwal son of Sh.Baldev Raj Aggarwal r/o # 297, Sector 20-A, 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. QUORUM SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI MEMBER SMT.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 LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Sh.Yashpaul Aggarwal has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OP-1 be directed to :- i) Refund Rs.3,41,028/- illegally retained by OP-1. ii) Pay a sum of Rs.5 lacs as compensation for deficiency in service, mental agony and harassment etc. iii) Pay costs of litigation. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is working as Assistant General Manager in NABARD, Jalandhar. He booked one LTC tour through OP-1 for Chandigarh-Delhi-Chennai-Port Blair-Chennai-Delhi from 28.01.2010 to 01.02.2010 for himself and his family. The complainant gave two cheques dated 29.12.2009 and 31.12.2009 for Rs.2,41,028/- and Rs.1,00,000/- (total amounting to Rs.3,41,028/-) respectively for the tickets which were duly encashed by the OP-1. In lieu of the aforesaid payment of Rs.3,41,028/-, OP-1 issued him an internet printout of tickets of the Kingfisher Airlines MSMUBE. However, to his utter surprise OP-1 later on cancelled the tickets without his consent. 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. The complainant was issued internet printout of Indian Airlines Tickets for 28.01.2010 bearing Airline Confirmation No.Nacil Indian Airlines RBZMAS but some seats were in waiting list. On his request, new tickets were issued for 22.01.2010 bearing Airlines Confirmation number as Nacil Indian Airlines RBZMAS. However, the complainant was not issued the booking slips. It has been pleaded by the complainant that he himself obtained the booking slips from the Indian Airlines office at Chandigarh. He came to know that the booked tickets had cost Rs.1,95,100/-. When the complainant enquired about the excess balance amount of Rs.1,45,928/- 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.3,41,028/- 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. According to the complainant it amounts to deficiency in service. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. OP-1 duly served but nobody appeared on its behalf, hence it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 07.05.2010. 4. Initially OP-2 appeared through Sh.R.K.Sharma, Advocate but subsequently it remained absent, hence it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 26.08.2010. 5. In reply filed by OP-3, it has been denied that they received any payment from the complainant. It has been pleaded that on 22.12.2009 OP-1 i.e. the agent of the complainant created the PNRs on their reservation system for travel from 28.1.2010 & 01.02.2010 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 further been pleaded that the mere creation of PNR by the agent on the system does not entitle the passenger to avail the services of the said airlines. It has been denied that there was any cancellation of the tickets as the same were never booked. In these circumstances, according to OP-3 there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint qua it deserves dismissal. 6. In its separate written statement, it has been pleaded by OP-4 that the entire allegations in the complaint with regard to cancellation of the bookings without the consent of the complainant, 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 pleaded that the complainant could not avail the LTC fares because he himself cancelled his bookings vide communication dated 18.1.2010. According to OP-4, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves to be dismissed against it. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 8. The payment of Rs.3,41,028/- towards the bookings of the tickets and its encashment by the OP-1 are not disputed. The complainant has alleged that after receiving the aforesaid amount, the OP-1 issued him an internet printout (Annexure C-5) of the ticket of Kingfisher Airlines bearing confirmation for the Chandigarh-Delhi-Chennai-Port Blair-Chennai-Delhi sector from 28.1.2010 to 1.2.2010 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.1,95,100/- only but they did not refund him the balance amount of Rs.1,45,928/-. 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. 9. 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, that is why they chose to stay away. Hence the case set up by the complainant goes unrebutted to this effect. So OP-1 is proved to be deficient in service. 10. 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. 11. In view of the above findings, the complaint is allowed with the following direction to OP-1 to:- i) Refund the entire amount deposited by the complainant i.e. Rs.3,41,028/-. No deduction of the statutory charges for cancellation have to be borne by him either. ii) Pay Rs.40,000/- as damages to the complainant for the harassment caused to him ii) Pay Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation. 12. This order be complied with by OP-1 within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order failing which it would be liable to pay the entire amount of Rs.3,81,028/- (Rs.3,41,028/- + Rs.40,000/-) with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the order till actual payment besides costs of litigation. 13. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. After compliance, the file be consigned. Announced 11.03.2011 Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT cm sd/- (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI) MEMBER Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER
| | MR. A.R BHANDARI, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | | 
