Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/53/2019

Dr. Komal Malik - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s SOTC Travels Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sahil Khunger Adv.

17 May 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	53/2019
Date of Institution	:	05.02.2019
Date of Decision	:	17.05.2021

 

                                       

                       

 

Dr.Komal Malik w/o Sh.Anand Kumar r/o VPO Bandhera, District Una.

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.     M/s SOTC Travels Ltd., SCO 147-148, Level 1^st, Above LG Showroom, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Near Sindhi Sweets, Chandigarh 160008 through its Branch Manager.

2.     M/s SOTC Travels Ltd., 7^th Floor, Urmi Estate, 95 Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400013 through its Managing Director.

...Opposite Parties

3.     British Airways, Indra Gandhi International Airport, new Delhi through its CEO.

…. Proforma Opposite Party.

BEFORE:
		SHRI RAJAN DEWAN,	PRESIDENT
		SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA,	MEMBER
		SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
Argued by:-
	Sh.Sahil Khunger, Adv. for the complainant Sh.Suksham Aggarwal, Adv. for OPs No.1 & 2 Sh.Shashank Sharma, Adv. for OP No.3

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         Briefly stated, the facts of case as alleged by the complainant are that  in February, 2018 she booked tour for America via OPs No.1 & 2 from 03.06.2018 to 12.06.2018 by paying Rs.7,93,681/-.  She was to receive Universal Studio Pass for two days at Orlando but OPs No.1 and 2  provided passes of Disney Studio instead of  Universal Studio and on her persistent requests they arranged the passes for Universal Studio on the day of visit by 12:00 Noon (American time) although the park was opened for visitors at 9 a.m. and due to this reason, she could not enjoy the Universal Studio from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. It has further been averred that the return flight from Miami to New Delhi was via business class, however, she got business class sets from Miami to London only and after halt, the plane was changed from London to New Delhi and OP No.3 did not provide business class seats on the ground that the required number of passengers not met, and rather it provided a letter allowing refund for not providing business class seats and charging only for economy seats.  According to the complainant, as the tickets were booked by OPs No.1 and 2, therefore, the refund of the difference in price for business class and the economy class would have been refunded to them by OP No.3, but they have not refunded the same despite her repeated requests and service of legal notice dated 25.08.2018. Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.  
2.         In their written statement, OPs No.1 and 2 while admitting the factual matrix of the case has pleaded that the complainant booked tour from OP No.1 departing on 03.06.2018 by paying Rs.7,93,681/-.  She earlier requested for Disney Studio passes  and the same were handed over on 28.06.2018 i.e. almost a week prior to departure with full itinerary to which she raised no objections and later on she changed her request and asked for the tickets of Universal Studio and the same was arranged and forwarded to her through whatapps at 9:44 AM (American Time) to which she confirmed and replied at 9:46 A.M. and, therefore,  there was no delay of 3 hours as alleged.  It has further been pleaded that they tried their best to make the complainant have a comfortable journey but since they just organized and plan holidays, they cannot be held responsible if there is any deficiency in service on the part of independent contractors/service providers and if she had any grievance she could have taken it up with the Airlines Authorities.  It has further been pleaded that being a centric organization, they processed the request to the concerned Airlines and OP No.3 had refunded the difference of Rs.5599/- per person  and thus the complainant had received aggregate amount of Rs.16,797/- against three passengers. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         In its separate written statement, OP No.3 has pleaded that it has been arranged as a proforma OP and no deficiency in service whatsoever has been alleged qua it. It has further been pleaded that the complainant has not mentioned either the PNR number or the booking reference number of the tickets on which she travelled as per itinerary and as such OP No.3 was not in a position to retrieve any detail from its own records and to respond as to why the complainant was downgraded from business class to economy class as alleged and the details of refund process against the alleged downgrade. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.         The complainant filed separate rejoinders to the written replies of the Opposite Parties controverting their stand and reiterating the averments as made in the complaint.    It has been stated that OPs No.1 and 2 have placed on record certain documents as Ex.OP-2 wherein the PNR of the complainant was mentioned and as such it is clear that OP No.3 in order to hoodwink the Commission has raised the issue with regard to PNR and ticket number which was already in its knowledge. It has further been submitted that the complaint is liable to be allowed with costs.
5.         We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record and written arguments of the complainant as well as OP No.3.
6.         After going through the rival submissions of the parties and evidence on file, we are of the considered view that the present complaint is liable to be accepted qua OPs No.1 and 2 for the reasons stated hereinafter. It is an admitted fact that the return flight from Miami to New Delhi was via Business Class and the complainant got the flight via Business Class from Miami to London only and thereafter the same was changed from London to New Delhi in which the business class seats alleged to be few and as such OP-3 (British Airways) provided a letter to the complainant allowing refund for not providing the Business Class seats and charging only for economy seats.  
7.         The Counsel for the complainant has vehemently submitted that the difference of the air tickets has not been refunded by OPs No.1 and 2 so far despite her repeated requests and filing of the instant complaint.
8.         On the contrary, it has been argued by the Counsel for OP No.3 that due refund on account of downgrade was made in September, 2018 to OPs No.1 and 2 but the same has not been paid to the complainant for the reasons best known to them and as such there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint qua it deserves to be dismissed. 
9.         The factum of payment of the difference of the fare of the air tickets by OP No.3 to OPs No.1 and 2 is further substantiated from the averments made in para 7 on merits of the written reply of OPs No.1 and 2 themselves wherein they have fairly admitted that British Airways (OP No.3) had refunded the difference of Rs.5,599/- per person.  It is not understood that as to why they have not refunded the amount so received by OP No.3 to the complainant despite her repeated requests and filing of the present complaint before this Commission. The aforesaid acts of omission and commissions certainly amounts to deficiency in service as also indulgence into unfair trade practice on the part of OPs No.1 and 2.
10.         As regards, the plea of the complainant regarding delay in providing the Universal Studio passes on the part of OPs No.1 and 2 is concerned,  the same stands belied by OPs No.1 and 2 by placing on record the whatsapp messages exchanged with the complainant from which it is clear that there was no delay as alleged in the complaint in providing the Universal Studio passes and as such the same is rejected accordingly.
11.         In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed qua OPs No.1 and 2 only and the same is accordingly allowed. OPs No.1 and 2 are directed as under ;-

1. To refund the difference of the air tickets from London to New Delhi to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9 p.a. from the date of its receipt from OP No.3 till its realization.
2. To pay Rs.7,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

                This order be complied with by OPs No.1 and 2, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(i) and (ii) shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.

12.         The complaint qua OP No.3 stands dismissed.
13.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

 

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
Announced	(B.M.SHARMA)	[RAJAN DEWAN]	(PRITI MALHOTRA)
17.05.2021	MEMBER	PRESIDENT	MEMBER

cmg