Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/35

Tezinder Singh Saran - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Noor enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjeev Sharma Adv.

11 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:35 dated 15.01.2019.                                                 Date of decision: 11.05.2023.

 

Tezinder Singh Saran aged 35 years son of Sh. Harpal Singh, Resident of House No.1/124, St. No.3, G.T.B. Nagar, Mullanpur Dakha, District Ludhiana.                                                                                             ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. M/s. Noor Enterprises, Mandi Mullanpur, Shop No.3, G.T. Road, Mandi Mullanpur, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, through its proprietor Sh. Baldev Singh.
2. M/s. Arora Enterprises, Aman Nagar, Near Jyoti Model School, Jalandhar-144001, through its proprietor/authorized person.
3. M/s. Jet Airways (India) Ltd., HDIL Building, 4^th Floor, Kaledonia, Andheri, Sahar Road, Andheri Railway Station East, Mumbai-400069, through its Assistant Manager Sheetal Panchal.

…..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate.

For OP1                         :         Sh. Dinesh Sharma, Advocate.

For OP2                         :         Exparte.

For OP3                         :         None.

 

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that opposite party No.1 and 2 are in the business of tour and travels and the complainant approached opposite party No.1 as he wanted to meet his brother living in Toronto Canada in the second week of May 2018. Opposite party No.1 assured to provide best services regarding complete tour and travel package to the complainant. Believing upon the version of opposite party No.1 to be true, the complainant got ready to purchase the ticket and paid an amount of Rs.78,500/- to opposite party No.1 who made the ticket through his computer and told that the flight of the complainant will depart from Delhi to Chennai and after Chennai to Paris CDG. According to the complainant, after purchasing ticket, he went to Delhi on 09.05.2018 for departure where officials of immigration authority i.e. opposite party No.3 told him that as per the ticket, his flight will depart from Chennai. Thereafter, the complainant rushed to Chennai with his two baggage, wherein the immigration authority told that his flight is to depart from Delhi and not from Chennai. The complainant immediately approached office of opposite party No.3 at Chennai regarding cancellation of ticket and refund the cost upon which opposite party No.3 agreed and assured to refund the same later on. Believing upont he version of opposite party No.3 to be true, the complainant immediately returned to Delhi Airport from Chennai and called his cousin to arrange new ticket for Toronto Canada who arranged new ticket through Cathay Pacific Airline by spending huge amount and thereafter, the complainant reached Toronto and after one month he returned back to India. After reaching India, the complainant approached opposite party No.1 regarding refund of cost of ticket and told him the entire happening due to their conduct and deficiency in service upon which opposite party No.1 told that they provided services to him with the help of opposite party No.2 as they are working together in the said business and they will refund the amount within a short period. The complainant further stated that he also repeatedly approached opposite party No.2 and 3 and sent emails regarding refund of cost of ticket to which opposite party No.3 replied that “the refund of ticket is under the control of issuing authority and it is governed through established IATA Guidelines. Hence you need to contact the agent for applicable refund of the ticket.” On receiving said email, the complainant approached and requested opposite party No.1 to refund the cost of the ticket but it always postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and finally refused to refund the same. The complainant got served a legal notice dated 01.08.2018 through his counsel Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate upon the opposite parties but to no effect. The complainant further stated that he suffered great mental tension and agony on account of deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties for which they are liable to refund cost of the ticket and to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. In the end, the complainant prayed for issuing direction to the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.78,500/- and to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- along with litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/-.

2.                Notice of the complaint was sent to opposite party No.2 through registered post on 12.02.2019 but none turned up for opposite party No.2 despite of service of notice and as such, opposite party No.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 10.05.2019.

3.                Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written statement and by taking preliminary objections, assailed the complaint on the ground of maintainability of the complaint, lack of cause of action; mis-joinder of necessary party; lack of jurisdiction. According to opposite party No.1, the amount had to be refunded to the complainant by opposite party No.3 and the same already stands refunded to him and in case he seeks any further amount, then he has to file a suit for recovery and has no right to file the present complaint.

                   On merits, opposite party No.1 reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. However, opposite party No.1 admitted the factum of booking of ticket to Toronto in Canada for the complainant for an amount of Rs.78,500/-. Opposite party No.1 stated that the complainant is guilty of withholding material facts and concealing the actual position. According to opposite party No.1, when the complainant approached it to book the ticket, he was informed that in case he wants to get a direct flight to Toronto then the same will be costlier than the flight which has 2/3 halts up to Toronto. As the complainant wanted to save money so he opted for a flight to Toronto having a few halts in between. As per the instructions of the complainant, the ticket was booked through opposite party No.2 in the flight operated by opposite party No.3 and it was clearly informed to the complainant that he has to board the flight from Delhi and then the half will be at Chennai and then the next halt will be at Paris and then from Parish the flight will leave for Toronto. It has been duly printed on the ticket regarding the places of halt and time of taking off flight from Delhi airport to Chennai  and then from Chennai airport to Paris and when from Paris to Toronto. The complainant has misrepresented the facts that he got the knowledge at Delhi airport that he will have to go to Chennai. According to opposite party No.1, there was some problem with the documents of the complainant at the immigration checkpoint in the Chennai airport due to which he could not continue with his flight from Chennai to Paris and then to Toronto. As a gesture of accommodation, opposite party No.3 adjusted the complainant in another flight to Delhi and he came back to Delhi and then he booked the ticket to another airline and left for Toronto and came back India after his stay in Toronto. Now as an afterthought the complainant took up the matter with opposite party No.1 who referred the matter to opposite party No.2 and thereafter, matter was also taken up with opposite party No.3. According to opposite party No.1 there was no fault on its part but it taken up the matter with opposite party No.3. Although the complainant could not board the flight from Chennai to Paris because of some problem with his documents at the immigration checkpoint and as such, there was no wrongdoing on the part of flight operator or on the part of opposite party No.1 yet as a gesture of goodwill, opposite parties agreed to refund Rs.50,000/- i.e. cost of the ticket after deducting the amount of tax and other miscellaneous expenses and which had already been transferred in the account of the complainant through NEFT on 21.06.2018 and as such, the complainant is guilty of concealing the facts. Opposite party No.1 has denied that there is any deficiency of service and has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                Opposite party No.3 filed separate written statement and by taking preliminary objections, assailed the complaint on the ground of maintainability of the complaint; suppression of material facts; lack of cause of action etc. Opposite party No.3 stated that the complainant has allegedly booked the flight ticket from Delhi to Toronto with the first leg of travel being from Delhi to Chennai on 09.05.2018, second leg from Chennai to Paris and third leg from Paris to Toronto. According to opposite party No.3, the first leg of International travel being Chennai to Paris, the immigration process needed to be followed at the first leg i.e. at Chennai Airport only. The air ticket was booked by the complainant through a travel agent i.e. jointly from opposite party No.1 and 2 and thereafter, he is not a consumer of the services of opposite party No.3. However, the refund has been made by opposite party No.3 to the concerned travel agent as the tickets were booked through it and the complainant should seek the same from opposite party No.1 and 2 as there was no direct transaction between the complainant and opposite party No.3 at any point of time. The complainant has entered into transaction with opposite party No.1 and 2 and he cancelled the tickets through them and the refund against cancellation of tickets were processed through the same channel.

                   On merits, opposite party No.3 reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. Opposite party No.3 has denied that there is any deficiency of service and has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents i.e. Ex. C1 is the copy of air ticket dated 03.05.2018, Ex. C2 is the copy of air ticket dated 07.06.2018, Ex. C3 to Ex. C6 are the copies of emails, Ex. C7 is the legal notice dated 01.08.2018, Ex. C8 to Ex. C10 are the copies of postal receipts and closed the evidence.

6.                On the other hand, counsel for opposite party No.1 tendered affidavit Ex. RA1 of Sh. Balhar Singh, Proprietor of opposite party No.1 along with documents Ex. R1 is the copy of email regarding refund of Rs.50,000/-, Ex. R2 is the copy of air ticket dated 10.05.2018, Ex. R3 is the copy of cheque No.079806 dated 21.06.2018 of Rs.50,000/-, Ex. R4 is the copy of customer acknowledgement receipt dated 21.06.2018, Ex. R5 is the copy of account statement of Noor Enterprises, Ex. R6 is the copy of legal notice dated 01.08.2018, Ex. R7 is the copy of reply to legal notice dated 08.08.2018, Ex. R8 is the copy of postal receipts, Ex. R9 and Ex. R10 are the copies of consignment track record and closed the evidence.

                   Opposite party No.3 did not adduce any evidence despite grant of sufficient opportunities including last and final chance and as such, evidence of opposite party No.3 was closed by order vide order dated 19.12.2022. 

7.                None turned up for opposite party No.3 since 13.06.2022. However, we have heard the arguments of the counsel for the complainant and opposite party No.1 and also gone through the complaint,  affidavit and annexed documents and written replies along with affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties.

8.                Admittedly, opposite party No.1 and 2 were rendering services with regard to tour & travel and ticketing etc. while opposite party No.3 is an airline company. The complainant in his complaint has claimed a refund of Rs.78,500/-  and compensation from the opposite parties on account of alleged deficiency due to cancellation of ticket purchased by him for travelling from Delhi to Chennai and Chennai to Paris on the way to Toronto, Canada. Ex. C3 is the copy of email sent by the complainant to opposite party No.3, operative part of which is reproduced as under:-

“The plane took off Delhi on 10^th May as per schedule and landed at Chennai Airport around 11.00 pm same day.

While going through the travelling document’s the immigration authority at Chennai did not permit me to continue my further journey on the plea that I can’t immigrate from Chennai but should instead go to New Delhi and migrate from there. Accordingly, I approached Jet Airways office at Chennai to very kindly cancel my journey and refund the cost of the ticket to which they agreed. As per their advice, I took first available flight from Chennai to Delhi and travelled further through Cathay Pacific to Toronto by purchasing new ticket.

In view of the forgoing I would request your honour to kindly arrange the refund of amount of unused ticket at the earliest.

If the amount has already been refunded by you to concerned agent, kindly intimate details of amount that has been refunded.”

Perusal of this email Ex. C3 shows that the complainant has requested for refund of amount of unused ticket and has further requested opposite party No.3 that if the amount has already been refunded to the concerned agent, the details of the amount may be conveyed to him. In response to email Ex. C3, opposite party responded vide email Ex. C4 stating tyherein that in view of IATA guidelines, concerned agent may be contacted. Ex. C4 to Ex. C6 are the emails which were exchanged between the complainant and opposite party No.3 with regard to refund of the ticket. Further Ex. R3 is the copy of cheque No.079806 dated 21.06.2018 of Rs.50,000/-, Ex. R4 is the copy of customer acknowledgement receipt dated 21.06.2018, Ex. R5 is the copy of account statement of Noor Enterprises i.e. opposite party No.1. A conjoint reading of those documents clearly shows that the amount of Rs.50,000/- was transferred in the account of the complainant through NEFT on 21.06.2018. It is strange that even after the receipt of the refund of amount of Rs.50,000/-, the complainant issued a legal notice Ex. C7= R6 on 01.08.2018. The reply Ex. R7 was sent by opposite party No.1 and it was specifically mentioned that an amount of Rs.50,000/- has already been transferred in your account through NEFT on 21.06.2018 and the complainant was advised not to indulge in unnecessary frivolous litigation. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

9.                It is apposite to mention that despite being aware of all these facts and circumstances, the complainant presented this complaint supported by an affidavit before this Commission on 15.01.2019. From the above chronology of events, it is crystal clear that the complainant concealed material facts of refund of amount from this Commission. It was bounden duty of the complainant to state true and accurate facts in his complaint as well as in the affidavit and otherwise it amounts to misrepresentation and fraud on the part of the complainant. Such like frivolous complaints are barriers for expeditious disposal of other complaints. The act and conduct of the complainant is highly deprecated.

10.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

11.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                     (Sanjeev Batra)

Member                         Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:11.05.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Tezinder Singh Saran Vs M/s. Noor  Enterprises             CC/19/35

Present:       Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.  Dinesh Sharma, Advocate for the OP1.

                   OP2 exparte.

                   None for OP3.

 

                   None turned up for the OP3 today also. None has been appearing in this case on behalf of the OP3 since 13.06.2022.

                   Arguments on behalf of the complainant and OP1 heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)             (Sanjeev Batra)

Member                         Member                              President        

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:11.05.2023.

Gobind Ram.