BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.401 of 2018
Date of Instt. 25.09.2018
Date of Decision: 24.02.2020
1. Varinder Singh Bangar Aged 55 years son of Late Shri Hardial Singh r/o Pindori Nijjran, District Jalandhar Passport No.P5819468.
2. Joginder Singh Aged 60 years son of Harnam Singh r/o Ajit Nagar Street No.3, Old Tanda Road, Hoshiarpur. Passport No.J2616501.
..........Complainants
Versus
1. M/s Dhruv Holidays, 46, Ess kay Ower Basement, Central Market, Jalandhar-Punjab. Phone No.0181 464236
2. M/s Delta Airlines India, Delta Customer Care, Tower-C, 8th Floor, Building No.8, DLF Cyber City, Phase-II, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana.
3. Travel Booking Agent, Shop No.11, Bhanumati Shopping Centre Mumbai-40090.
4. Air France, 45 rue de Paris 95747 Rissy CDG Cedex, France through their office in New Delhi, India, Air France, DLF Building-Cyber City, 8th Floor, Tower-C, DLF, Phase-II, Gurgaon-122002-Haryana.
5. Integrated Air Transport Limited, Agents for Delta Airlines in India, Podar House, 10 Ground Floor, Marine Drive, Sitaram D Marg, Churg Gate, Mumbai-400020.
6. Jet Airways India Ltd., Siroya Centre, Sahar Airport Road, Andheri East, Mumbai,
Local Address: Jet Airways India Ltd., BMC Chowk, G. T. Road, Jalandhar.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Present: Sh. Vikram Shorey, Adv. Counsel for the Complainants.
Sh. Sumit Verma, Adv. Counsel for the OP No.1.
OPs No.2, 3, 4 & 5 exparte.
Sh. A. S. Sohal, Adv. Counsel for the OP No.6.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by both the complainants, wherein alleged that complainant No.1 is working as Assistant Manager in the Oriental Bank of Commerce, International Tractor Limited, Hoshiarpur and Complainant No.2 is working as Manager in the same bank. Both the complainants are family friends. Both the complainants planned to spend their holidays in Canada and wished to see the beautiful sites in Vancouver and other sites of the Canada. Both the complainants are having multiple tourist visas. Due to said reasons, both the complainants contacted the OP No.1 and purchased their confirmed flight tickets from the OP No.1 at Jalandhar on March, 26th 2018 of OP No.2 Delta Air Lines. The OP No.3 is the agent of Delta Airlines. Ticket No.0065316702143-144 and 0065316702145-146 were issued by the OP No.1. As per schedule, the route for going to Vancouver was via New Delhi to Bombay on 17.04.2018, Bombay to Paris on 18.04.2018 operated by Jet Airways OP No.6 and Paris to Vancouver on 18.04.2018 operated by Air France OP No.4.
2. That as per schedule, both the complainants started their journey from Indra Gandhi International Airport Delhi to Vancouver i.e. the final destination on 17.04.2018 at 09:55 P. M. Local time of India and when they reached Paris on 18.04.2018 at 08:15 a.m. (Local time of Paris), the complainants were told that the flight from Paris to Vancouver was cancelled for 18.04.2018, it was happened without any prior notice and the knowledge of the complainants. It was shocking and frustrating news for both the complainants. So much so, the counter staff of code share airline of Air France, OP No.4 of OP No.2 did not cooperate at all, but on continuous pressure and persuasions, the OP No.4 started trying to arrange the seats in other flights, but even after waiting for a period of approximately six hours, they failed to arrange seats for the complainants. The complainants suffered for mental agony and mental torture besides wastage of time due to sheer negligence of all the OPs. All this happened on 18.04.2018 at 08:15 A.M., when the flight of the complainant as per schedule arrived at Paris. The flight from Paris to Vancouver was to depart at 10:25 A. M. (Local time of Paris), but cancelled without any prior notice and knowledge. On 19.04.2018, the complainants were asked by the Airlines OP No.4 that they are unable to send the complainants to Vancouver by direct flight from Paris. The Airlines staff showed their inability and asked that there was only one option for the complainants for going to Vancouver that first they have to go to Toronto City of Canada and after that they further can go to Vancouver in some other flight. After facing so much harassment and discomfort caused by the OPs, the complainants had to accept and accordingly, confirmed paper tickets were issued to the complainants. The tickets from Paris to Toronto and further Toronto to Vancouver, which were issued, are Ex.C-11 and Ex.C-12. As per new schedule, the flight from Paris to Toronto was to depart at 13:50 P. M. (Paris Time) on 19.04.2018 and scheduled to arrive at Toronto at 16:10 P.M. (Local Time of Toronto) on 19.04.2018 and further, it is very important to submit here that next flight from Toronto to Vancouver was 18:00 P.M. on 19.04.2018 and scheduled to arrive to Vancouver at 19:54 P.M. on 19.04.2018. But miserably situation of the complainants did not stop here. When the complainants reached Toronto as per new schedule, at 16:10 (Local time of Toronto on 19.04.2018), the complainants had to stand in a queue for the immigration and there was a great rush in the immigration line at Toronto and complainants had to wait for their turn. After the immigrations when the complainants reached at the counter of Air Canada, the complainants came to know that flight had already gone due to no fault of complainants. On repeated requests, the counter staff of Air Canada issued boarding pass for the next flight for Vancouver on behalf of the confirmation letter, which are Ex.C-11 and Ex.C-12 issued by Air France/OP No.4 at the time of boarding from Paris on 19.04.2018. That the complainants reached at boarding counter and boarding staff also issued their seats numbers. The boarding was started, the complainants were standing in a queue and waiting for their turn for entering into the plane, but when the boarding staff of Air Canada punched the tickets/boarding passes of the complainants for boarding, they said that something is wrong in the tickets and ordered the complainants to stand in one side for further waiting. One member of boarding staff started scrutinizing the confirmation letter of the complainants, which was issued by Air France, but in the mean time the boarding was over and the flight was ready to take off, but the complainants were still standing there. The complainants felt very much embarrassed, humiliated, insulted. In the mean time, the flight took off for Vancouver, with the luggage of the complainants. After holding the complainants for hours, the boarding staff of Canadian Air Lines said that the seats of the complainants were confirmed only upto Toronto by the OP No.4 and the system is not showing the confirmation seats of the complainants from Toronto to Vancouver, whereas the complainants were issued confirmed tickets by the Air France and as such, the complainants felt humiliated and insulted. Thereafter, the complainant was having only one way to reach Vancouver, only to purchase new tickets and accordingly, the complainant managed to purchase new tickets and reached Vancouver after spending huge amount for new tickets. Thereafter, the complainant served a legal notice upon the OPs No.1 to 5 requested them to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to each of the complainant alongwith interest, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay the value of the air tickets i.e. Rs.35,818.97/- to each, in total Rs.71,637.94 to the complainant and further, OPs be directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to each of the complainant with interest @ 18% per annum for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant and further, OPs be directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.1,00,000/-.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OPs No.2 to 5 did not come present and ultimately, OPs No.2 to 5 were proceeded against exparte.
4. OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed a written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law as the same has been filed on the false and frivolous grounds and further alleged that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from the Forum, therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable and further alleged that the complainant himself is wrong doer and has filed the complaint on false and concocted facts, whereas the true facts are that the OP No.1 is only issuing agent of the tickets. There is no fault of OP No.1 in this case. Actually the ticket was issued by Delta Airlines/OP No.2 and operated code share flight Jet Airways OP No.6 Delhi to Bombay, Bombay to Paris and Paris to Vancouver operated by Air France/OP No.4. From the perusal of the whole case, it appeared that the fault is on the part of the OP No.4/Air France. There occurred no problem of service from the OP No.1. The problem occurred in service to complainant in Paris to Vancouver. The OP No.1 has been involved baselessly in this complaint. On merits, the purchase of the tickets by the complainants is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
5. OP No.6 filed its separate reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that at the very outset the fact needs to be recorded here that in the entire complaint filed by the complainant, there is not even a single averment against the OP No.6. Thus, it is evidently clear that the complainant does not have any grievances against the OP No.6. Moreover, even the legal notice issued by the complainant prior to filing the present complaint, had been addressed to all of the other OPs except the OP No.6. This fact itself proves that the complainant has made OP No.6 a party to the complaint as an after thought only with no rhyme and reason. It is further alleged that the OP No.6 has diligently provided its services to the complainant and the complainant is claiming damages/compensation without any fault or deficiency in services on the part of the OP No.6 and that cannot be allowed to him being completely in contravention of principles of natural justice and further submitted that the complainant had not faced any difficulty due to acts of answering airline. The OP No.6 issued boarding pass till Paris and complainants arrived at Paris on scheduled time without any alleged delay. On merits, the factum alleged in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
6. Replication not filed.
7. In order to prove its respective case, the complainant as well as OPs No.1 and 6 produced on the file their respective documents along with pleadings.
8. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant as well as counsel for the OPs No.1 and 6 and also gone through the case file very carefully.
9. In nutshell, the allegations of the complaints are, simply that they remained confined in Paris for want of further flight to Vancouver and as such, they were harassed and humiliated there, further alleged that the matter does not stop here, rather a boarding card was issued by Air France from Paris to Vancouver, via Toronto, when they reached Toronto, then they were again stopped by the Canada Airline on the pretext that there seats were confirmed upto Toronto only and due to that reason, they could not further go to Vancouver and remained struck there for one day and also forced to purchase new tickets from Toronto to Vancouver and copies of the same are available on the file Ex.C-11 and Ex.C-12 and as such, they claimed compensation as well as return of the tickets amount from all the OPs.
10. We have sympathetically considered the case of the complainants and find that they purchased tickets from OP No.1 qua Delta Airlines and copy of the tickets are available on the file Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6. As per tickets, the flight from Delhi to Bombay and Bombay to Paris was to operate by Jet Airways i.e. OP No.6, as per story narrated by the complainant in the complaint, they reached Paris without any delay and there was no hindrance or harassment, if so, then we find that there is no negligence on the part of the OP No.6 as well as OPs No.1 to 3 and 5 because the harassment of the complainant took place at Paris, where they struck for one day for want of further flight in time. The flight which is to be operated by Air France, from Paris to Vancouver and admittedly, the OP No.4 intentionally and willfully did not appear to face the consequences of this complaint because the OP No.4 is at fault and committed a grave negligence and also provided deficient services to the complainants. It is established on the file that the complainant was forced to go Vancouver via Toronto due to the fault of the Air France i.e. OP No.4. Not so, the complainant again remained struck at Toronto for want of proper flight there-from and ultimately, they have to purchase new tickets after spending huge amount from their own account by operating credit card and the said new tickets are available on the file Ex.C-11 and Ex.C-12, which also established that a necessity was arose to the complainant to purchase new tickets due to fault of the Air France. So, with these observations, we are of the opinion that the complainants are entitled to get reimbursement of the tickets price from Paris to Vancouver as well as compensation and litigation expenses from OP No.4 and accordingly, complaint of the complainants qua OP No.1 to 3, 5 and 6 is dismissed.
11. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted qua OP No.4 only and OP No.4 is directed to pay the price of the tickets purchased by both the complainants from Toronto to Vancouver by spending an amount of Rs.35,818.97/- each in total Rs.71,637.95/- and further, OP No.4 is directed to pay compensation to both the complainants in equal share, to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and further, OP No.4 is directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
12. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jyotsna Karnail Singh
24.02.2020 Member President
