BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.352 of 2016
Date of Instt. 16.08.2016
Date of Decision: 27.03.2018
Anuraj Singh Philloura S/o Sh. Amarjit Singh, of 32 years old, R/o 175, Vijay Nagar, Mahavir Marg, Jalandhar-144001, Punjab, India Mobile No.9814503175.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Qatar Airways through its Manager, TC30/1403, Bela Vista, Near SBT Pettah, Nalumukku Pettah, Thiruvananthapuram-695 024, Kerla, Branch Office: Ground Floor, Midland Financial Centre, Next to ICICI Bank Main Branch, G.T. Road, Jalandhar- 144001.
2. M/s Akbar Travels of India Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director/Chairman/Manager, Head Office: Akbar Bhavan, 69- 71, Janjikar Street, Near Crawford Market, Mumbai-400 003, having Branch Office: Ist Floor, Midas Corporate Park, 37 G.T. Road, Jalandhar-144001.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)
Present: Sh. AK Walia, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. CM Sachdev, Adv Counsel for OP No.1.
Sh. Anuj Bhalla, Adv Counsel for the OP No.2.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. This complaint is presented by the complainant, wherein alleged that the OPs are engaged in the business of providing service for air traveling in and out side India for consideration to the general public through out India and more particularly at Jalandhar. The complainant used to travel by air regularly. The complainant booked a ticket for air traveling from Delhi-Doha-ORD-MEM-ORD and DOH-Delhi and paid for the same Rs.68,500/-, to the OP No.2 and accordingly, OP No.2 issued tickets No.ETKT 1575232593547 and ETKT 1575232593548 for the same through Email, Vide Invoice No.IS-14038490 dated 19.01.2015.
2. That the complainant got extended the date of his return journey through the OP No.2 on 01.04.2015 by paying Rs.8000/- for return journey, the OP No.2 issued E-Ticket Number ETKT 1576765525600, Flight No.QR5185 dated 10.09.2015, DEP Time 15.55 from Little Rock to Chicago Ohare US of Qatar Airways, Flight No.QR 722, dated 10.09.2015, time 19.45 from Doha, QA of Qatar Airways and Flight No.QR 564, dated 11.09.2015, Dep Time 20.55 from Doha To Delhi of Qatar Airways. The complainant on 08.09.2015, when inquired about the return journey for 10.09.2015 about the luggage detail, timing of the flight etc. for boarding the Flight No.QR 5185 from the concerned authority/customer care and the concerned authority/customer care confirmed the detail as per the E-Ticket of the flight and not informed about the changed schedule of the Flight No.QR 5185.
3. That when the complainant on 10.09.2015 at 12:30 Hrs reached Little Rock, Arkansas, Airport for boarding the plane of Flight No.QR 5185 of Qatar Airways from Little Rock to Chicago Ohare, USA as per flight schedule of E-Ticket, the complainant astonished and shocked to know that there is no flight of Qatar Airways, but the concerned authorities after several inquiries came to know that there is arrangement/tie up of the Qatar Airways with the American Airlines to carry the passengers of Qatar Airways by their flights and the concerned flight of American Airlines had already been take off at 12.22 Hrs. That the OPs have never informed the complainant with regards to the change of schedule of flight No.QR 5185, whereas the contact numbers of the complainant both of USA and of India were with the OPs. The OPs never bothered to inform the complainant with regard to the change of flight schedule of the E-Ticket number ETKT 1576765525600 of flight No.QR 5185, whereas it is the duty of the every airlines to inform the customer with regard to the change of flight schedule. Due to family emergency in India and due to Visa restriction the complainant could not accept the option for flight No.3560 of American Airlines on 12.09.2015 from Little Rock, Arkansas, Airport because the visa of the complainant was only upto 13.09.2015 and by the accepting of the above offer of the concerned authority of the Little Rock, Arkansas, Airport, it is not possible for the complainant to reach Delhi upto 23.59 hrs on 13.09.2015.
4. That due to the compelled circumstances, the complainant with all help, including financial, of his friend namely Sh. Gurteg Singh, who was accompanied the complainant to drop the complainant at Little Rock, Arkansas, Airport by his Car could arranged to purchase Air Ticket from Cheapoair for his return journey to India, so that the complainant could reach India upto 23.59 hours on 13.09.2015 i.e. before the expiry of his visa. The complainant with all help, including financial, of his friend namely Sh. Gurteg Singh, purchased a ticket bearing booking number 30190070 of Flight No.222 and Flight No.514 of Emirates Airline with Airline Confirmation for $952.80 through Master Card and accordingly, the complainant could reach India on 12.09.2015 at Delhi Airport. For boarding the above mentioned Flight No.222 and Flight No.514, the complainant reached Dallas Fort Worth from Little Rock Arkansas by traveling about 514 KM by Car of his friend namely Sh. Gurtej Singh by getting filled the Petrol/Gas for $24.78 and also paid $136.85 for stay in Hotel Fair Field Inn, Marriot, Dallas, also paid for food etc -$26.80 to Restaurant and also spent some other dollar for purchasing on necessary things.
5. That thereafter, the complainant through email correspondence and filed a complaint with regard to the above mentioned facts to the OPs and the complaint of the complainant registered as Case Reference: CAS-621934- J8T6D6, but all in vain. But the OP No.1 through its email correspondence of dated 13.10.2015 through Mr. Linah Williams of Customer Care e-mail ID, illegally alleged that for variety of reasons, which can include commercial and operation reasons, schedules can be subject to change, please allow me to inform you that when you book your ticket via a travel agent, the contract is between you and your travel agent. Your itinerary history indicates that the time change was done on 14.06.2015 and it was queued to your travel agent to inform you of the same. It is the duty of your travel agent to inform you of any changes made to the schedule and for him to re-book/amend your booking as necessary. From your email, we realize that this was not communicated to you.
6. That due to above said facts, the complainant suffered mental tension, harassment, inconvenience, physical torture, financial loss etc. and the complainant assesses the same to the tune of Rs.9,50,000/- in all in terms of money and also find that there is deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint and accordingly, the instant complaint filed with the prayer that the OPs be directed to pay Rs.9,50,000/- in all to the complainant as compensation for mental tension, harassment, inconvenience, physical torture, financial loss etc. with costs in the interest of justice.
7. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant or against the answering OP and the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed at the very outset against the answering OP and further alleged that the complainant got tickets for travel on 14.03.2015 and return on 03.04.2015 from the office of OP No.2 i.e. Akbar Travels of India Pvt. Ltd. and thereafter, the complainant on 01.04.2015 reschedule the date of return to 10.09.2015 and new ticket was issued to the complainant by Flight No.QR 5185 from the office of OP No.2 Akbar Travels of India Pvt. Ltd. and further alleged that the said return flight scheduled for departure from Little Rock on 10th September, 2015 at 15.55 got rescheduled to 12.22 on 10.09.2015 and that reschedule was very well brought to the notice of the travel agent through IATA Code, which goes from system to system. A copy of the IATA Code reflecting the indication of the time change of the scheduled flight is attached and further submitted that the Flight No.QR 5185 was operating on code-share basis with American Airline. A code-share agreement or simply code-share, is an aviation business arrangement, where two or more airlines share the same flight and further alleged that as per the email of the OP No.2, addressed to the OP No.1, it is clearly stated that the reservation was created by a sub-agent, who is currently inactive in the market. On merits, the factum in regard to purchase of the ticket by the complainant is admitted, but the liability to inform the reschedule of flight fastened upon the OP No.2, the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
8. OP No.2 filed its separate reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed out rightly because the complaint is totally vague, imaginary, hypothetical and ambiguous, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs. It is further alleged that the complainant is estopped by his own act, conducts, admission and omissions from filing the present complaint, hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed and even no cause of action accrued to the complainant against the OP No.2, this is nothing but the mislead the process of law, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with heave costs. It is further alleged that the present complaint is not maintainable under the law. The dispute raised by the complainant in the present complaint is manifestly outside preview of the act. The present complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless, unsustainable and untenable. Thus, liable to be dismissed and further submitted that the complainant has also concealed the material facts from the Forum and has wrongly pleaded that the OP No.2 in the present case. It is pertinent to mention here that the negligence can be viewed on the part of the complainant that he might reached airport late and his flight got missed and the allegations made by the complainant is misleading because as per the DGCA guidelines-Civil Aviation requirement Section 3- Air Transport Series “M Part-IV” Issue 1 dated 06.08.2010, it is mandatory to update the contact details of passenger in the PNR mobile number and email ID, which help the airlines to convey the passenger about the delay in flight, cancellation or diverted or rescheduling, not the agent, who has booked ticket. So, airline is to communicate not the agent. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant has purchased a ticket from the replying OP, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
9. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant himself tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-23 and closed the evidence.
10. Similarly, counsel for OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OPW1/A and some documents Ex.OPW1/1 to Ex.OPW1/3 and then tendered into evidence an other affidavit Ex.OPW1/4 and closed the evidence and similarly, counsel for the OP No.2 also tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP2/A and closed the evidence.
11. We bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the submission made by learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the written argument submitted by OP No.1 and 2.
12. From the pleadings of the parties, it reveals that the factum in regard to purchase of Air Tickets by the complainant from OP No.2 of the Qatar Airways of OP No.1 from Delhi To Doha-Chicago-USA as well as return tickets, which are for the Flight of 14.03.2015 and returned on 04.04.2015, but the date of return ticket was got extended by the complainant after making a payment of additional amount of Rs.8000/- to OP No.2, on 01.04.2015 and accordingly, OP No.2 issued a ticket No.ETKT 1576765525600, Flight No.QR 5185 dated 10.09.2015, departure time 15.55 from Chicago to Doha and dispute of the complainant also had been arisen in regard to the flight from Chicago to Doha on 10.09.2015. As per version of the complainant, the time for departure from Chicago was given to him 15.55 and accordingly, the complainant got a ticket confirmed on 08.09.2015 from OP No.1 regarding luggage detail timing of the flight and then complainant reached on the Airport on 10.09.2015 at 12.30 hours and inquired about the flight No.QR 5185 of Qatar Airways, but he was astonished to know that there is no flight of Qatar Airways rather one flight of American Airways to carry the passenger of Qatar Airways has already been take off at 12.22 hours and due to that negligence on the part of the OP, the complainant could not get a schedule flight and finding no other alternative, purchased a new ticket of an other Airways after spending a huge amount from his own pocket.
13. The factum in regard to purchase of the ticket by the complainant of flight No.QR 5185 as well take off that flight at 12.22 hours i.e. prior to the schedule time i.e. 15.55 hours are admitted by the OPs. The plea taken by the OP No.1 is only that the return flight schedule for departure time later on on 10th September, 2015 at 15.55 got rescheduled to 12.22 on 10th September, 2015 and further alleged that the said flight QR 5185 was rescheduled on 14 June, 2015 and regarding that a message was conveyed to the agent through the IATA Code, which goes from system to system and copy of the said IATA Code is produced on the file by the OP No.1, the same is Ex.OP1/2 and accordingly, we have gone through the said copy of IATA Code and find that the schedule time of the flight is QR 5185 was rescheduled to 12.22 from 15.55, but it is no where mentioned in the said document Ex.OP1/2 that the information in regard to reschedule of the time of flight has been ever intimated to the complainant, rather the OP No.1 categorically alleged in the written statement that it is the duty of the agent to inform the customer and on this ground, the OP No.1 made immune itself from the liability of the complainant.
14. On the other hand, the OP No.2 categorically alleged that as per guidelines of 'Civil Aviation', it is mandatory duty of the Airline to update the contact details of passenger in the PNR mobile number and email ID, which help the airline to convey the passenger about the delay in flight, cancellation or diverted or rescheduling and it is not the duty of the agent, who booked the ticket. The plea taken by the OP No.2 seems to genuine and acceptable because the reschedule of the timing of flight is in the hands of the Airline not in the hands of the agent and whenever, the time of any flight is rescheduled, then it is cardinal duty casted upon the said Airline to inform the agent with the request to further inform all the customer or directly informed all the customer through email or through mobile message, but in this case, the Airline i.e. OP No.1 after reschedule the time of Flight No.QR 5185, never informed to the complainant or OP No.2 with the direction to further inform the complainant rather prior to two days schedule time of the flight, the complainant got information in regard to detail of luggage and timing of the flight, but even on that day, the OP No.1 did not inform the complainant regarding the reschedule time of the flight. Similarly, the OP No.2 through its email dated 06.11.2015 and 08.11.2015 Ex.OP1/3 also informed the OP No.1 that the information in regard to reschedule of the time of flight was not informed to the complainant by the OP No.1 directly or through OP No.2 and further informed that it is the duty of the Airline to inform the passengers. The factum in regard to rescheduling of the time of the flight has been admitted by the OP No.1 in its reply in Para No.3 of the preliminary objection and as such, these facts are not required to strictly proved by the complainant even then the complainant has brought on the file his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A, whereby reiterated the entire story as elaborated in the complaint and further complainant has brought on the file his previous ticket, which one is disputed i.e. Ex.C-7 and that flight was missed due to rescheduling of time and as such, the complainant purchased further Air Ticket, copy of the same is proved on the file Ex.C-8, apart from that the other documents produced on the file are not necessary to discuss because the most relevant documents are discussed above. So, from the over all discussion, itself gave a result that the complaint of the complainant is having much substances and accordingly, we find that the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed.
15. In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant succeeds and accordingly, the same is partly accepted qua OP No.1, whereas complaint of the complainant against OP No.2 is dismissed and further OP No.1 is directed to pay the 'returned airfare' of USA $952 (converted into Indian Currency by taking into account the rate of the dollar at the time of making payment by the complainant i.e. 10.09.2015). The complainant is also entitled for interest @9% per annum on the aforesaid converted Indian currency note, from the date of purchase of ticket i.e. 10.09.2015, till realization. The OP No.1 is further directed to compensate the complainant for mental harassment, inconvenience and physical torture, to the tune of Rs.35,000/- and also directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-. 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.
16. 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 Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh
27.03.2018 Member President
