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

========

Inderpreet Kaur w/o Dilbagh Singh r/o H.No.1185, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh.

….…Complainant

                           V E R S U S

1.      M/s Grand Travel Planners (P) Ltd., SCO No.22-23, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager, HO Chamber No.14-16 (1^st Floor), SCO No.55-56, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.

2.      Air Canada, 202, Second Floor, Ansal Bhawan, 16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110001, through its concerned official/incharge.

2^nd Add :

SCO No.40-41, Ground Floor, Bassi Building, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.

3.      M/s Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd., Thapar House, Janpath Road, New Delhi.

                                  ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

              SH.SIDDHESHWAR SHARMA  MEMBER

DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

Argued by: None for complainant.

Sh. Vaneesh Khanna, Adv. for OP-1.

Sh. Atul V. Sood, Adv. for OP-2.

OP- 3 exparte.

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

             Succinctly put, the complainant alongwith her husband contacted OP-1 for their intended visit to Canada and UK in June 2008 alongwith their two children.  At the time of making the enquiry the complainant’s younger son was infant (i.e. less than 2 years of age) but before coming back the infant would have become child after completing 2 years and this fact was duly informed to OP-1 upon which they were told that the child would be charged as infant as the journey was to commence earlier. Thereafter the complainant purchased four tickets after making payment of Rs.1,73,450/- for their outward journey i.e. Delhi – London – Toronto commencing on 6.6.2008 as well as return tickets for the journey commencing on 17.7.2008.  However, on their return journey from Toronto to London the officials of OP-2 stopped the complainant and her family from boarding the plane and were told that they could not take their youngest child i.e. Jaideep Singh alongwith them because he had completed two years of age and had become child on 17.6.2008. The complainant was forced to buy a new ticket for her said son by paying 1265.86 Canadian Dollars and even the amount of the ticket already bought was not adjusted.  Upon return the complainant and her husband met the officials of OP-1, narrated the entire situation and sought reimbursement of the amount of 1265.86 Canadian dollars but to no avail. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             In their written reply OP-1 pleaded that since the OP-2 refused to honour the ticket issued by its partner at the last moment, therefore, the answering OP could not be held responsible in this regard.  It has been submitted that upon coming to know of the harassment suffered by the complainant and her family the answering OP took up the matter with OP-2 and helped the complainant in every possible manner but the OP-2 failed to refund the excess amount.  Pleading that the deficiency in service, if any, was caused by OP-2, the answering OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             In their separate written reply OP-2 pleaded that OP-1 is neither their agent nor is authorsied to make any statement on their behalf.  It has been submitted that as the child had attained the age of two years on return journey, therefore, as per Air Canada’s fare rules and Canadian legislation, he could only travel on payment of the applicable child fare.  It has been denied that the OP-2 indulged in any wrongful or inhuman behaviour.  It has been stated that the complainant preferred to travel on an underpaid ticket knowing well that the infant would attain the age of two and would, therefore, have the risk of paying the full child fare. The receipt of legal notice has been admitted but the same was duly replied. 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. 

4.             OP-3 did not appear despite due notice, therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte.

5.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

6.             We have heard the Learned Counsel for the OPs and have also perused the record. 

7.           Annexure C4 is the ticket issued by OP no.3 with respect to an infant on 4.06.08. There is no dispute about it that an infant ticket carries a fair of Rs.5000/- as shown in Annexure C1.   If the OP no.3 issued a wrong ticket showing Jaideep Singh as infant throughout the period of journey, it is the deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.3.  The Learned Counsel for the OP no.1 has stated that a copy of the passport was sent to OP no.3 showing the date of the birth of the minor and thereupon they issued the ticket Annexure C4 directly to the said minor in which OP no.1 had no role to play.  However, when the ticket was received from OP no.3 and they had shown the minor as infant even on the return journey, the OP no.1 was justified in telling the complainant that OP no.3 has treated the entire journey as one and has charged the minor as infant even on the return journey.  Needless to mention that a copy of the passport accompanies the request for issuance of a ticket and it was for the OP no.3 to see whether the Canadian Airlines i.e. OP no.2 would allow the minor to travel the entire flight as infant, even after he attained the age of 2 years on 17.06.08 or not. It is however the case of OP no.2 that they do not allow a child to travel as an infant after he had attained the age of 2 years and if the wrong ticket Annexure C4 was issued by OP no.3 for the return journey of the minor, it is their fault and not that of any other OP.

8.           OP no.2 was fully justified in stopping the minor to travel as infant after he had crossed the age of 2 years. They were therefore fully justified in issuing ticket. The OP no.2 however committed a mistake firstly by issuing a return ticket Annexure C-11from Toronto to London and London to Toronto, though the minor was performing the journey only from Toronto to London.  Needless to mention that when the minor performed the journey from London to Toronto, he was an infant and had already paid the charges vide Annexure C4.  No ticket as a child should have been issued to him for the journey, which he had already performed as an infant. The second fault committed by OP no.2 was that the amount of fare already paid by minor vide Annexure C4 should have been adjusted while issuing the ticket Annexure C11.  The OP no. 2 however did not adjust the said amount.

9.           In view of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that the present complaint must succeed.  The same is accordingly allowed. OP no.2 is directed to refund the amount equivalent to 632.98 CAD to the complainant for over charging and also to refund the proportionate amount of the charges spent on purchasing the ticket Annexure C4 alongwith Rs.5000/- as compensation for harassment.  OP no.3 who has not come forward to contest these allegations and was proceeded against ex-parte is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant for issuing a ticket which their partner i.e OP no.2 was not to honour thereby causing him mental and physical harassment at the airport.  The complaint against OP no.1 is dismissed.

10.          The entire amount alongwith litigation costs of Rs.2000/- shall be paid to the complainant within 30days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order by OP no.2 and 3, failing which they would be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the entire amount since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 7.05.09 till the amount is paid.

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