DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH =============== [Complaint Case No: 94 of 2011] Date of Institution : 23.02.2011 Date of Decision : 26.04.2012 -------------------------------------- Smt. Shukla Kumari wife of Sh. J.C. 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. [struck off vide order dated 13.7.2011] [3] Ravinder Partap Singh Thakural, Proprietor M/s Thakural Travels & Immigration Consultants, resident of H.No. 3504, Sector 37-D, Chandigarh. [struck off vide order dated 13.7.2011] ---Opposite Parties. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. J.C. Kapoor, Advocate for the Complainant. Sh. G.S. Saini, Advocate for Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 struck off. 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, by KLM Royal Dutch Airlines on 25.2.09 vide invoice no. 353 and paid Rs.50,000/- vide Annexure C-1. The Complainant had planned to commence her journey from 3.4.2009 from Delhi and the return journey was planned for 28 July 2009 from Minneapolis USA . The Complainant due to some emergency, advanced her visit to Minneapolis USA for 3.3.2009 and requested the Opposite Parties to cancel the previous ticket issued for the date 3.4.2009 and arrange a ticket for 3.3.2009. This confirmed ticket for 3.3.2009 is annexed at Annexure C-3. Thereafter, the Complainant could not commence her journey on 3.3.2009 and intimated the Opposite Parties regarding the non-commencing of the journey on 3.3.2009, on their telephone numbers 0172-4669997, 4669998 and 98148-38398. [2] However, the Complainant again made a request to the Opposite Parties for airline ticket departing 5.3.2009, in the Economy Class. The Opposite Parties while answering to this request claimed that if desired, a confirmed Business Class Ticket is available, and there is no availability of Economy Class Ticket. The Complainant in her urgency paid Rs.33,500/- and another Rs.50,000/- to one Sh. Sanjeev the representative of the Opposite Parties on 3.3.2009 vide Receipts at Annexure C-4 & C-5 respectively. [3] The Complainant commenced her journey on 5.3.2009, but during her journey, the Complainant came to know that she had been booked in Economy Class and not in the Business Class, as promised. Though the Opposite Parties had charged Rs.83,500/- in excess to the Rs.50,000/-, which was paid earlier on 25.2.2009 vide Annexure C-1, the Complainant claims to have received Rs.19,987/- vide Cheque dated 3.4.2009 (Annexure C-9) as refund. [4] The Complainant had requested the Opposite Parties to make the necessary refund of the excess amount charged by them, by sending a legal notice dated 21.6.2010 (Annexure C-6). A copy of the postal receipt and UPC is at Annexure C-7 and C-8 respectively. Not having received any response from the side of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant aggrieved of no reply from the Opposite Parties, has filed the present complaint, seeking the following relief: - i) | Refund Rs.33,500/- (Rs.83,500/- - Rs.50,000/-) along with interest @ 24% p.a. charged on account of issuing ticket of business class, but gave the ticket of economy class. | | ii) | Rs.30,013/- (Rs.50,000/- - Rs.19,987/-) along with interest @ 24% p.a. to the Complainant. The amount refundable from the OP is Rs.63,513/- (Rs.33,500/- + Rs.30013/-). | | 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. | |
[5] (a) Notice of this complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version/reply. Opposite Party No. 1 had appeared in person on 25.4.2011, however, summons sent to Opposite Parties No. 2 & 3 were received back un-served and were once again, sent through registered post on 13.7.2011. On 13.7.2011, at the request of the learned counsel for the Complainant, Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3 were struck off from the array of the Opposite Parties. The statement of the counsel was recorded, and taken up on file. [5] (b) It is also noticed that though Opposite Parties No. 2 & 3 were deleted from the array of parties, on the request of the complainant, vide order dated 13 July, 2011, but in- advertently they were repeatedly shown as ex-parte, till the orders were reserved after hearing of the arguments. [6] 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. It is also stated 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 present complaint. [7] 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 has contended and claimed 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 her journey and it was the said Airlines which had refunded the amount, payable to the Complainant, after cancellation of her tickets, booked on different dates. The issue of non-joinder of the necessary party is again raised. [8] While submitting a detailed sequence of bookings and cancellations of each and every ticket of the complainant and also mentioning the different categories, in which, the respective tickets were booked is mentioned in Paras 2, 3, 4, 5. However, while answering to the allegations of non-refund of money, Opposite Party No.1 has repeatedly mentioned that the necessary deductions on each such cancellation includes, Date Change Charges as applicable + difference of fare as there were different categories in Economy Class itself, namely H-Class and V-Class + Re-issuance Charges + Service Charges of the service which the answering Opposite Party is providing to its clients. [9] The answering Opposite Party while replying to the allegations of the Complainant about the lesser amount of refund, has categorically stated, in para 12, that the Complainant was intimated that she may check at any point of time with the KLM Royal Dutch Airlines about the charges that apply with regard to the different categories and class of tickets. Thus, claiming no deficiency in service on their part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint, being false, frivolous, with heavy costs against it, in the interest of justice. [10] The reply is supported by the affidavit of Mr. Ravinder Partap Singh Thakural, Manager of Opposite Party No.1 , along with few annexures. [11] Parties led their respective evidences. [12] 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. Thus fortifying its allegations against the opposite parties. [13] 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. [14] The main grouse of the Complainant is with regard to the lesser amount of refund made by the Opposite Parties as the Complainant had paid an amount of Rs.1,33,500/- vide Receipt at C-1, C-4 and C-5 dated 25.2.2009 and 3.3.2009 respectively. The Complainant though had received a refund of Rs.19,987/-, vide Cheque dated 3.4.09 in her name, but has claimed that finally the journey she had undertaken to Minneapolis USA was through a ticket for Economy Class, for which, she had earlier been demanded Rs.50,000/- on 25.02.2009. The Complainant alleged that on being asked her preference for Business Class ticket, on the ground that there was no availability of Economy Class ticket, had paid the excess amount to the Opposite Party No. 1, but the Opposite Party No. 1 had arranged an economy class ticket, rather than the business class, that they had promised and for which had charged the extra amount. Though, the Opposite Party No. 1, in its reply, in the concluding lines of para no. 12, has denied the allegations, that it had cheated the Complainant or over-charged her by demanding the money for business class and having provided an economy class ticket to her. [15] The Complainant has very specifically mentioned that the journey that she had undertaken under Economy Class ticket was worth Rs.50,000/- and that was amount demanded by the Opposite Parties initially, and the Complainant finally undertook the same journey in the Economy Class itself, there was no reason for the Opposite Party No.1 to charge another Rs.83,500/- for the same. As the Opposite Party No.1 had only refunded Rs.19,987/- and the same is admitted by the Complainant, but while raising her grievance, and serving the legal notice, the Complainant was very categorical in her demand about the details of deductions, as well as the failure on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 to provide her with the Business Class Ticket, for the same journey. While mentioning this aspect, in her complaint, in para no. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12, and also reiterating these contentions through additional evidence which is tendered by her, by way of an affidavit, after the filing of reply/version by the opposite party no.1. There is a very feeble answer by the Opposite Party No. 1 against this allegation, which finds mention in the last lines of para 12 of its reply to this specific allegation. In these circumstances, we feel that the Opposite Party No.1 while submitting its reply to Paras 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12 has failed to acknowledge the averments of the Complainant with regard to her preference for Business Class Ticket that she had booked through Opposite Party No.1, instead of the Economy Class Ticket, and by which, she ultimately under took her journey. As the Opposite Party No.1 has made a simple denial and failed to rebut this particular allegation of the Complainant in specific terms, hence, the allegations of the Complainant go unrebutted and prevail. [16] The Opposite Party No. 1 while defending the refund of Rs.19,987/- has claimed in their reply that this amount is received by it from the KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, after all the necessary deductions on account of date change penalty as applicable, difference of fare, as they were different categories in economy class itself namely H-Class and V-Class + re-issuance charges + service charges for the service which the answering Opposite Party is providing to its clients. But at the same time, the Opposite Party No. 1 has failed to prove this aspect, by bringing on record that it had received this amount of money from KLM Royal Dutch Airlines. The Opposite Party No. 1 should have answered these allegations in a manner that could satisfy the allegations of the Complainant, but the Opposite Party No. 1 has not brought any such proof nor there is any detail made available that could show that the different deductions made under different headings were as per the rules of the KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, applicable to its passengers. [17] Hence, in the light of above observations, we find 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. The Opposite Party No.1 is directed to refund Rs.63,513/- 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. Thereafter, the amount of Rs. 63,513-/ shell attract interest @18% per annum 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) ========================================================================================================================================== Shukla Kumari vs. M/s Thakural Travels & Immigration Consultants and Others(Complaint No.94 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 Shukla Kumari, 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] The Complainant had wished to travel to Minneapolis USA to visit her daughter for which a ticket had been booked by her through the Opposite Parties for Rs.50,000/-. Payment for her travel had been made by husband Sh. J.C. Kapoor. 2] The Complainant had initially booked a ticket for departure on 03.04.2009. Thereafter, she preponed the ticket to 3.3.2009. It is common knowledge that each time a travel date is changed, the airlines charge a specific fee to accommodate the passenger. The scheduled time of departure of flight was 1:40 AM. Opposite Parties have stated in reply that at 11:30 PM on 2.3.2009 when only 2 hrs. 10 min. were left for the departure of flight, she realized that she had misjudged the time and would not be in a position to board the flight. She therefore requested the Opposite Parties for cancellation/ refund. The Opposite Parties have stated that even though the ticket was non-refundable, the Opposite Parties by making a special/ personal request to the KLM Royal Dutch Airlines were able to get an amount of Rs.19,987/- as refund for the Complainant. This amount was returned to her. The Complainant thereafter paid Rs.50,000/- again and booked a new ticket for departure on 5.3.2009. The fare on both the occasions was for ‘V’ class tickets. However, as the latter ticket could be booked at a higher rate only in a higher class an additional amount of Rs.33,500/- was charged from the Complainant. The different in charges and variation of class from economy ‘V’ class to economy ‘H’ class were done after taking the consent of the Complainant before changing the date and re-issuance of ticket. All these details have been given in Para No.2 to 5 of the reply by the Opposite Parties and in the affidavit of Mr. Ravinder Partap Singh Thakural, Manager, Thakural Travels and Immigration Consultants, SCO No.66-67, 2nd Floor, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, dated 27/9/2011. It is common knowledge that airlines charges different fares for different class of passengers and the price of tickets vary from time to time depending on the market principle of demand and supply. As the date of departure gets closure, it is seen that the price of tickets becomes more. Also all cancellations/ refunds/ changes of dates are allowed only after deductions of certain fixed charges by the Airlines. The Opposite Parties have stated that they have paid charges to KLM Royal Dutch Airlines as applicable. The Opposite Parties have also stated in their reply that the Complainant was informed about the charges taken by KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and the Complainant was free to find out from the Airlines directly about the said record. This record would also be available with the Opposite Parties, but they have not placed it on the file. The Opposite Parties have specifically denied that they have charged for business class and have actually provided economy class to the Complainant as alleged. Even though the ticket is not on record, but admittedly, the Complainant has traveled by the flight. In my opinion, no amount charged against the said flight without specific proof by the Complainant about over charging can be refunded to her. Hence the demand by the Complainant of the alleged excess amount charged by the Opposite Parties can be proved only if the Airline, which has the exact detail of all the charges, is made a party to the complaint. The Complainant has chosen not to involve the Airline in the dispute. Hence, in my opinion, no amount is due by the Opposite Parties to Smt. Shukla Kumari and the complaint is accordingly dismissed. 3] 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)
| | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | , | |
