DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No: 93 of 2011] Date of Institution : 23.02.2011 Date of Decision : 26.04.2012 -------------------------------------- Jagdish Chander Kapoor son of Sh. K.D. Kapoor, resident of H.No. 3598, Sector 37-D, Chandigarh. ….Complainant. (VERSUS) [1] M/s Thakural Travels & Immigration Consultants, SCO 66-67, 2nd Floor, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its Prop. Sh. Ravinder Partap Singh Thakural. [2] Ravinder Partap Singh Thakural, Proprietor M/s Thakural Travels & Immigration Consultants, SCO 66-67, 2nd Floor, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. [3] Ravinder Partap Singh Thakural, Proprietor M/s Thakural Travels & Immigration Consultants, resident of H.No. 3504, Sector 37-D, Chandigarh. ---Opposite Parties. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Complainant in person. Sh. G.S. Saini, Advocate for Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 Ex-parte. PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER [1] Complainant has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Parties on the grounds that the Complainant had booked airline ticket from Delhi to Minneapolis USA and back through the Opposite Parties for KLM Royal Dutch Airlines on 25.2.09 vide invoice no. 352 and paid Rs.50,000/- vide Annexure C-1. The Complainant had planned to commence his journey from June 5, 2009 from Delhi and the return journey was planned for 29 July 2009 from Minneapolis USA . The Complainant due to change in his plans, preferred not to undertake the journey and intimated Opposite Party No. 1 through his letter dated 21.05.2009 (Annexure C-3), which was duly received by Opposite Party No.1, requesting for the cancellation of the said ticket and intimated the Opposite Parties regarding the non-commencing of the journey on their telephone numbers 0172-4669997, 4669998 and 98148-38398. The Complainant had requested the Opposite Parties to make the necessary refund of the amount charged by them, by sending a legal notice dated 21.6.2010 (Annexure C-4). A copy of the postal receipt and UPC is at Annexure C-5 and C-6 respectively. Not having received any response from the side of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant aggrieved of no reply from the side of the Opposite Parties, has filed the present complaint, seeking the following relief: - i) | Refund Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 24% p.a. from 25.2.2009, till realization | | ii) | To pay Rs.75,000/- along with interest @ 24% p.a. on account of deficiency in service, mental agony, torture and unnecessary harassment. | | iii) | To pay Rs.21,000/- towards litigation expenses. | |
[2] Notice of this complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version/reply. However, despite proper service, nobody has appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 & 3, therefore, they were preceded against exparte vide orders dated 13.07.2011 [3] The Opposite Party No.1 has contested the claim of the complainant by filing its reply, taking preliminary objections to the effect that the Complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands, and has concealed, and misstated the material facts, also that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present Form and also on the grounds of non-joinder of necessary parties as KLM Royal Dutch Airlines to whom the payment was sent, by the Opposite Party No1., for air ticket booking, has not been made party to the complaint. It is also mentioned that the Opposite Party No. 1 has refunded an amount of Rs.34,500/-, after deducting cancellation charges, vide Cheque No. 033891, dated 6.7.2009, in the name of the wife of the Complainant namely Shukla, on the request of the Complainant. On merits, the Opposite Party No.1 has contested the claim of the Complainant by giving a para-wise reply to all the averments of the present complaint. The Opposite Party No.1 had contended and admitted the fact that the answering Opposite Party was merely a booking agent from KLM Royal Dutch Airlines. Complainant had actually availed the service of the KLM Royal Dutch Airlines for his journey and it was the said Airlines which had refunded the amount, payable to the Complainant, after cancellation of his tickets. The amount of Rs.34,500/- has been paid to the Complainant vide Cheque No. 033891 dated 6.7.2009, in the name of the wife of the Complainant, namely Shukla, at his own request. It is also mentioned that the Complainant has intentionally and malafidely concealed the receipt of refund of Rs.34500/- in respect of the ticket in question. While replying to para 4, of the complaint, the Opposite Party No. 1 has denied the averments being wrong, wherein the receipt of legal notice dated 21.6.2010 is also denied. However, the request dated 21.5.09 is admitted and the refund of Rs.34,500/- made on its part, is in response to the request of the Complainant. In response to para 5 of the complaint, the Opposite Party No. 1 claims it to be wrong and denies the allegations, claiming that the Opposite Party No. 1 has not approached this forum with clean hands and has concealed and mis-stated the material facts, regarding receiving of the refund vide Cheque dated 6.7.2009 amounting to Rs.34,500/- (after deducting the cancellation charges, as applicable, the amount was sent in the name of the wife of the Complainant, at his request). The Opposite Party No. 1 has prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint, being false, frivolous, with heavy costs, in the interest of justice and has requested that the Complainant be burdened with exemplary costs. [4] The reply is supported by the affidavit of Mr. Ravinder Partap Singh Thakural, Manager of Opposite Party No.1 , along with few annexure. [5] Parties led their respective evidences. [6] The Complainant has filed an additional evidence by way of an affidavit dated 10.01.2012, after the filing of reply by the Opposite Party No.1, refuting the submissions made by Opposite Party No.1 in their reply/ version and categorically stating that no payment of Rs.34,500/- was refunded to the Complainant and the accounts statement attached with the reply of the Opposite Party No. 1 is bogus. The Complainant has also submitted that as he had hired the services of Opposite Party No. 1, and has no connection with KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, hence, does not find it necessary to implead the same. [7] Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the Opposite Parties, the evidence of the parties and with the able assistance of the ld. Counsel for the parties, we have come to the following conclusions. [8] It is established that the Complainant had availed the services of Opposite Party No. 1 for is travel from New Delhi to Minneapolis USA on 5 June, 2009, by paying Rs.50,000/- on 25.2.2009, for a return ticket departing 5 June, 2009 from Delhi and departing Minneapolis USA on 29 July, 2009. The Complainant has intimated the cancellation of the said ticket through his letter dated 21.5.2009 (C-3) as well as had raised his grouse against the Opposite Parties by sending the legal notice dated 21.6.2010 (C-4), wherein he had raised his demand of refund of his amount due towards him, against the cancellation of the said tickets dated 5 June, 2009 and 29 July, 2009. [9] The Opposite Party No. 1 has not denied the averments of the Complainant with regard to availing its services for the booking of the said ticket in question, though acknowledge the receipt of cancellation request dated 21.5.2009, but had denied the receipt of legal notice dated 21.6.2010. While replying to the allegation of non-payment of refund amount, the Opposite Party No. 1 has prayed that an amount of Rs.34,500/- was refunded to the Complainant vide Cheque no. 033891, dated 6.7.2009, after deducting cancellation charges, as applicable, in the name of his wife namely Shukla, at his request. The Opposite Party No. 1 in support of its contentions has annexed one document which is a detail of account of Opposite Party No. 1 with AXIS Bank for the period 10.7.2009 to 10.7.2009 wherein one entry by the name of Shukla is mentioned. We have minutely perused this document, which is dated 7.11.2009, but are not convinced, as to how this particular name Shukla could be attributed to the wife of the Complainant. The Opposite Party No. 1 has also failed to bring to record the communication of the Complainant, through which he had desired the refund to be made in the name of his wife and had disclosed the name of his wife as Shukla to the Opposite Party No. 1. We are also not convinced that how could the Opposite Party No. 1 refund the amount of money due towards Complainant in the name of some other entity, as it is a bad business practice. Thus, it is established that the Opposite Party No. 1 has not made any refund in the name of the Complainant, till date. The Opposite Party No. 1 while claiming that they had made a payment of Rs.34,500/-, to the Complainant, as according to them the Cheque was issued in the name of one namely Shukla, but at the same time, the Opposite Party No. 1 has failed to corroborate this fact by any of their office communications made with the Complainant, which could explain this aspect, or at least throw some light on this issue. Hence, the claim of the Opposite Party No.1 that an amount of Rs.34,500/- was refunded against the cancellation of the ticket of the Complainant, is not established. [17] Hence, in the light of above observations, we find that non-refund of the dues towards the Complainant against the cancellation of his airlines ticket is a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1. The present complaint of the Complainant succeeds against the Opposite Party No.1, and the same is allowed, while it is dismissed qua Opposite Parties No.2 & 3. The Opposite Party No.1 is directed to refund Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of this complaint, within 30 days of the receipt of this order, along with Rs.7,000/- as litigation expenses. There after the amount of Rs 50,000-/ shall attract interest @18% from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is actually paid. [18] Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 26th April, 2012. Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER ================================================================================================= Jagdish Chander Kapoor vs. M/s Thakural Travels & Immigration Consultants and Others(Complaint No.93 of 2011) Date of Order: 01.05.2012 DISSENTING ORDER PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER I have read the orders, written by Sh. Jaswinder Singh Sidhu, Member in the instant complaint filed by Sh. Jagdish Chander Kapoor duly signed in agreement by Hon’ble President, Sh. Lakshman Sharma. However, I cannot sign in agreement and express my dissent to the observations and final verdict due to the following reasons: - 1] Here it is important to mention that Smt. Shukla Kumari wife of Sh. Jagdish Chander Kapoor had also filed a Complaint No. 94 of 2011 against the same Opposite Parties with allegations of over charging by the Opposite Parties. Both cases were argued together. I am writing dissent for both complaints, even though both the Complainants have filed separate complaint without any reference to the other. 2] The Complainant had wished to travel to Minneapolis USA to visit his daughter. A sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid by Sh. Jagdish Chander Kapoor to the Opposite Parties for booking his ticket, for which he later requested for cancellation and refund. 3] The Opposite Parties stated that a sum of Rs.35,000/- has been sent to Mrs. Shukla Kumari by them (Complainant in Complaint Case No. 94 of 2011). This according to them was the amount payable to Sh. Jagdish Chander Kapoor, who actually did not travel, but made a request to them to send the money in his wife’s name. No such request is on record. Opposite Parties had stated that this amount was the refund due to Sh. Jagdish Chander Kapoor after charging cancellation charges, as applicable, by the Airlines. The Complainant has not impleaded the Airlines as a party. The Complainant Sh. Jagdish Chander Kapoor has stated that the alleged payment of Rs.35,000/- is not in his name. But there is also no denial that the amount of Rs.35,000/- has been received by his wife Shukla. 4] We have to understand that when a ticket is cancelled, the full amount is never refunded and refund is always made after charging the statutory charges/ taxes, as applicable, by the Airlines. Hence, ordering a refund of the complete ticket amount along with interest and compensation to Sh. Jagdish Chander Kapoor by the Ld. Member, in my opinion, is not justified. At the most, he is entitled to the amount refunded by the Airline against his ticket. The version of the Airline is not available on the record, and the Opposite Parties have stated that the amount of Rs.35,000/- paid by cheque, in the name of his wife is the amount which was payable to him. Since there is no proof on record that the amount of Rs.35,000/- was actually refunded to Sh. Jagdish Chander Kapoor, he is entitled to recover this amount from the Opposite Parties. Opposite Parties have stated that the amount was given in the name of his wife. The ambiguity about the recipient of this payment has still not been clarified. Hence, the Complainant is entitled to this amount from the Opposite Parties and they should make this payment, if it has not been refunded on his behalf to his spouse. The complaint is disposed of accordingly. 5] Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of cost. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 01.05.2012 Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER “Dutt”
| | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | , | |
