BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.345 of 2013
Date of Instt. 26.8.2013
Date of Decision :18.12.2014
1. Pawan Goel son of late Shri Janak Raj Goel.
2. Sahil Goel son of Pawan Goel.
3. Ms.Jyoti Goel wife of Pawan Goel.
All residents of 74 Seth Hukam Chand Colony, Jalandhar.
..........Complainants
Versus
M/s Flight Raja Travels Pvt.Ltd, through its CMD, Magnolia, Block B, Level 4, Manyata Embassy Business Park, Outer Ring Road, Nagwara-Banglore, Karnatka-560045.
.........Opposite party
Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)
Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)
Present: Sh.KC Malhotra Adv., counsel for complainants.
Sh.AK Bajaj Adv., counsel for opposite party.
Order
J.S.Bhatia (President)
1. The complainants have filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainants, above named, law abiding citizens, are residents of Jalandhar and they got booked Air Tickets to and for travel from Chandigarh to Mumbai and Mumbai to Chandigarh on 26.11.2012 and 2.12.2012 from opposite party. These tickets were purchased from Jalandhar and the money was paid through electronic method from Axis Bank, Jalandhar from account of complainant No.1. The details of the booking and purchasing of the air tickets through E-Ticket are as under:-
The Air Tickets were got booked for onward journey to Mumbai as detailed below:-
1. Tickets booked of Kingfisher Airline
1. Sahil Goel (Adult)
2. Pawan Goel (Adult)
3. Jyoti Goel (Adult) 26 November 2012 4. Parul Goel (Adult) Chandigarh to Mumbai
total amount Rs.17388/-
Tickets cancelled vide reference No.FMNOLWO 08 HM
PNR No.KDTKKO/
________________________________________________________
II. Tickets booked of Kingfisher Airline
1. Sahil Goel (Adult)
2. Pawan Goel (Adult)
3. Jyoti Goel (Adult) 2nd December 2012 Mumbai to Chandigarh tickets amount Rs.13536/-
Tickets cancelled vide reference No.FMNOLWIEW6M PNR No.JUVFLEX.
2. It is, however, pertinent to mention and make the picture clear it is stated that the above named complainants alongwith their daughter Parul Goel travelled from Chandigarh to Mumbai but Parul Goel, their daughter had stayed at Mumbai and did not accompany them during the return journey from Mumbai to Chandigarh. The opposite party after deducting amount as cancellation charges was required to refund/pay back an amount of Rs.17,388, Rs.13,536 total amounting to Rs.30,924/- to the complainants. The complainants made several telephonic calls and also from mobile requesting to refund the amount of Rs.30,924/- but opposite party failed to remit the amount and maintained mysterious silence. The opposite party inspite of numberous calls of the complainants failed to return the amount in question. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite party to refund Rs.30,924/- to them alongwith interest. They have also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and filed a written reply pleading that the present complaint against the present opposite party is not maintainable as the opposite party is a travel agent and not the actual service provider and offers only web portal to the customers for booking tickets of their choice in accordance with the terms and conditions of the concerned Airlines. The complainants booked the tickets of Kingfisher Airlines and the ultimate contract was between the complainants and the airlines and not with the present opposite party. The complainants got cancelled the tickets of Kingfisher Airlines and the refund if any that has to be paid back by the Kingfisher Airlines and not by the agent. The complainants have not made Kingfisher Airlines as a party in the present complaint. The Kingfisher Airlines is a necessary rather the only party, against whom the complainants have grievance, as the refund if any, that has to be paid back by the Kingfisher Airlines. Moreover, Parul Goel has not filed any complaint as she can be aggrieved/competent person to file complaint for refund of her amount. The other complainants have no locus-standi to file the complaint on her behalf and that too without any authority or power. It is further pleaded that complainants booked the air tickets of Kingfisher Airlines through Web Portal of the opposite party. All cancellation, rescheduling and refunds of the Kingfisher Flights are governed by the applicable rules and regulations of the Kingfisher Airlines and which are beyond the control of opposite party. Moreover, all bookings made through opposite party are governed by the terms and conditions which are mentioned in www.via.com. The said terms and conditions clearly mentions that any and all airline tickets purchased through Via portal shall at all times be governed by the terms and conditions of the concerned airlines. Hence, the opposite party is no way liable to refund any amounts to the complainants. It denied other material averments of the complaint.
4. In support of their complaint, learned counsel for the complainants has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB along with copies of documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C8 and closed their evidence.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.OP/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP/1 closed evidence.
6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard learned counsel for both the parties and also have gone through the written arguments submitted by both the parties.
7. According to the complainants, the opposite party being the travel agent booked the air tickets for them and on its guidance the tickets were booked with Kingfisher Airlines and amount being claimed is in accordance with the cancellation policy. Further according to complainants, the amount passed from the complainants to the opposite party, who took his commission for conducting the said transaction, as such there is privity of contract between them. Further according to the complainants, the opposite party has acted as an agent of Kingfisher Airlines and as such he is also liable and non refund of the cancelled ticket amounts to deficiency in service. According to the complainants, the opposite party can not wash off his hands. In support of his above contention, learned counsel for the complainants has relied upon Triway Travels Pvt.Ltd Vs. Siragowni Sanjay and another, 2002(3) CLT 604. We have carefully considered the above contentions of learned counsel for the complainants. The above cited authority is on different facts and is not attracted in this case, as in that case the complainant engaged the services of opposite party i.e M/s Triway Travels Private Ltd, in connection with their travel plan from Banglore to Maldives and back to Trivandrum during period from 30.10.1999 to 7.11.1999. The ticketing, hotel reservation and transport arrangements from airport to hotel were supposed to be handled by the opposite party but on their arrival there was no facility for transport from the airport to the hotel assured by the opposite party which compelled them to make their own arrangements. Further on the next day when they went to Trivandrum airport to board the flight to Maldives, no boarding passes were issued to them at the Indian Airlines counter on the premises that their passport did not bear "Emigration Check Not Required" (ECNR) endorsement. It was found as a matter of fact that duty was cast on the opposite party to go through passport at the final stage of transaction to ensure that no hardship is caused to the complainant on account of emigration law coming in their away. So in the above circumstance, deficiency in service on the part of opposite party was found. The present case is on different footing. In the present case, the only dispute is regarding refund of the cancelled tickets. The refund of cancelled tickets is to be provided by the airline and not by opposite party. The tickets were booked on web site or portal of opposite party i.e www.via.com. Ex.OP1 contains terms of use of the portal or web site. Term No.11 provide as under:-
"11. Limitation on Liability. via .com merely provides intermediary services in order to facilitate highest quality services to you. via.com is not the last-mile service provider to you and therefore it shall not be or deemed to be responsible for any lack or deficiency of services provided by any person (airline, travel/tour operator or similar agency) you shall engage or hire or appoint pursuant to or resulting from the material available in this website. Neither via.com nor any its directors, employees, agents, vendors or suppliers will be liable for any direct, indirect, special, punitive, consequential or incidental damages including, without limitation, lost profits or revenues, costs of replacement goods, loss or damage to date arising out of the use or inability to use this web site or any via.com product, or damages from the use of or reliance on the information present on this web site, even if via.com has been advised of the possibility of such damages. Cancellation, no show and refunds will be as per operator policies".
8. So in view of above said term the refund was responsibility of the operator i.e Airline. In our opinion the opposite party is not liable to refund the amount of cancelled tickets and it is liability of the Kingfisher Airlines but it has not been made as party in the present case.
9. In view of above discussion, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia
18.12.2014 Member President
