Delhi

New Delhi

CC/09/2006

Pradeep Ahuja - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Air France - Opp.Party(s)

11 Oct 2018

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

    (DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

     VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

            NEW DELHI-110002.

 

 

Case No.CC/09/2007                                                       Dated:

 In the matter of:-

1.         Pradeep Ahuja

S/o Late D.C. Ahuja,

R/o 95, Hauz Khas Apartments,

New Delhi.

 

2.         Amita Ahuja

W/o Sh. Pradeep Ahuja,

R/o 95, Hauz Khas Apartments,

New Delhi.

 

3.           Manan Ahuja

S/o Pradeep Ahuja

R/o 95, Hauz Khas Apartments,

New Delhi.

 

4.          Shivya Ahuja

D/o Pradeep Ahuja,

R/o 95, Hauz Khas Apartments,

New Delhi.

                                                                                                …..Complainants

 

Versus

 

1. M/s Air France,

       7, Atma ram Mansion,

         Scindia House,

          Connaught Circus,

         New Delhi-110001.

 

2. M/s Diplomatic Travels,

         C-6, Shopping Centre,

          Vasant Vihar,

           New Delhi-110057

                                                                                            .…… Opposite Parties

 

H.M.VYAS :MEMBER

ORDER

This complaint was initially filed before Hon’ble State Commission and the Hon’ble State Commission transferred this case to this Forum vide order dated 11/05/2006.  Following prayer has been made:-

1. “Award compensation in favour of the complainants and against the OPs,  in the sum equivalent to 40,000 Euros  (@ 10,000 Euros x 4 complainants) i.e. a sum of approx. Rs. 22,00,000/- (1 Euro+Rs.55/-);
2. Direct the OP no.1 company to refund a sum equivalent to 75 Euros which were illegally charged by it from the complaint nos. 2 to 4.
3. Direct the OP no. 1 and 2 to take Disciplinary action against its Lady Representative (as requested in Annexures C-4 and C-6); and
4. Direct the OPs to pay to the complainants a sum of Rs. 55,000/- towards litigation charges.
5. Pass such other Order/Orders as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper, in the interest of justice”.

 

The OPs were then noticed and the version/ Written Statement has been filed by OP-1, Air France and OP-3, M/S Diplomatic Travels. The OP-2 namely M/S Jean-Cyril Spinetta, Chairmen and CEO, Air France was dropped on 12/07/2007 from the array of OPs and the OP-3 i.e. M/S Diplomatic Travels was accordingly arrayed as OP-2. Perusal of the proceedings shows that the OP-2 i.e. M/S Diplomatic Travels, was proceeded Ex-parte on 4/6/09 (the wrongly written as 4/2/09 in the proceedings) as the evidence was not filed despite opportunities.

It is stated by complainant that the complainants purchased 4 air tickets of OP-1 for journey from Delhi- Paris- London-Paris- Delhi. The dates of journey was  between  21/06/2005 to 05/07/2005. It is alleged that the OP-3 informed complainant through complainant no. 1 that  as per the rules of OP-1, change in date of journey was permitted once free of cost and the subsequent change, if any, was permitted on chargeable basis. Before departure from Delhi, the complainants got the date of returned journey changed from 01/07/2005 to 05/07/2005 and on enquiry the OP-3 (later arrayed as OP-2) informed that there was no need of endorsement of such date changed on the air tickets as the changes have been done in the computer data base of the OP-1. However as precautionary measure on 21/06/2005 the complainants produced the air tickets at the counter of OP-1 for reconfirmation of returned journey for 05/07/2005, which was reconfirmed by the counter of OP-1 at airport and issued revised computer generated itinerary to the complainants.

 On 04/07/2005 complainants went to Air France counter again at Heathrow airport London and produced tickets and computer generated itinerary for reconfirmation. The representative of OP-1 informed that though the tickets were confirmed for returned journey for 05/07/2005, yet it was advisable to get the same endorsed so as to bear the correct date of journey thereon. The representative of OP-1 affixed sticker on one of the four tickets without any charge and informed that since he was having only one/two stickers the same were not required to be affixed on rest of the three tickets. He further informed that there would be no problem because the tickets had already been reconfirmed in the computer of OP-1.

 On 05/07/2005 at about 6.00 am complainant attended checking counter of OP-1 at Heathrow, Air Port, London and the representative told that endorsement on rest of the three tickets  is required and directed complainant to Ticket Assistance Counter of OP-1 for the purpose of endorsement. The lady representative at the counter was unaware of the rules of OP-1 regarding change of date and insisted for payment of 150 Euro for date change charges for three tickets of complainant no.2 to 4. The complainants informed the said representative of OP-1 that change of date once is permissible without charge but she refused outrightly, and in such circumstances complainants were to pay half of date change charges on intervention by Senior lady representative of OP-1. The complainant had only 50 Euro with them and the said representatives got extremely annoyed and asked complainants “ You Indians-Go Away and Beg”. Do not waste our time as there are other passengers in queue”. Complainants were compelled to beg 25 Euro from sub passengers at Air Port and on payment the lady representative endorsed rest of the three tickets.

 On 17/07/2005 the complainant came back to India and wrote letter to OP-1 at its New Delhi address with all details to which the OP-1 through letter dated 26/07/2005,  on one hand apologize for inconvenience caused  but on other hand mischievously informed that “......any change in your reservation will incur additional charge”. The complainant in response to said letter retreated through letter dated 23/08/2005 along with the terms/rules under which scheme they purchased the tickets. The OP-1 responded through letter dated 30/09/2005 and informed that they are looking into the matter and gathering information. Thereafter on 10/10/2005 OP-1 offered to refund to the complainants no. 2 to 4 a sum equivalent to 25 Euros each but did not pay afterwards the legal notice dated 14/10/2005 send to the OP-1 & 2 was replied by OP-1 through its counsel on 21/11/2005. As nothing materialised, complainants filed the present complaint.

The  OP-1, M/S Air France  & OP-2, Diplomatic Travels ( earlier arrayed as OP-3) filed their respective written statement/version. OP-1 in its reply stated that the complaint deserves dismissal as no cause of action has arisen against it. All the allegations made in the complaint have been denied. It is admitted that the date changes after departure in such cases are chargeable Euros 25 per ticket; the tickets reflected 01/07/2005 as the date of travel, when the complainant present themselves for travel on 05/07/2005. Complainants paid GBP 51of about 75 Euros and obtain a date change on 05/07/2005 at London’s Heathrow Airport. The complainants flew as they wanted it on 05/07/2005 and arrived in India as rescheduled by them. The OP-1, though not liable had as a gesture of good will offered to refund even the amount of Euro 75 to the concerned complaints. It is stated that there is not deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and the complaint is frivolous without any cause of action and liable to be dismissed. Reliance have been made on the general condition of the OP Airline article III 1(F). Further, it is stated that the rights and liabilities of passenger and  Air carriers are governed by carriage by Air Act, 1972 which contains Schedule 1&2 that respectively incorporate the Warsaw Convention,1929 and the Hague Protocol, 1955. Rule 3 of Carriage Act, 1972, stats that the passenger ticket shall constitute prima-facie evidence; clause 3 of the conditions of the contract of OP as contained in a IATA ticket jacket provided to the passengers complainants provides that this services performed by carrier  are subject to provisions contain in the ticket, applicable tariff and carrier’s of carriage and related regulations. Further there is no liability of OP since the charge of 75 Euros was as per conditions applicable to the complainant’s ticket. As the complainant presented the tickets on 05/07/2005 at check in counter  showing the date of journey as 01/07/2005,  the change in date of travel after the departure was allowed  subject to charges, so there is no deficiency as alleged by the complainant.  The OP-1 has taken the objection that this Forum does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to try the present compliant since the amount claim is more than 20lacs . In reply to para 18 of the complaint it is stated regarding territorial jurisdiction that there is no occasion of any jurisdiction having been arisen  in India, therefore this Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction.

In the written statement/ reply by M/S Diplomatic travel Point Pvt. Ltd., It is stated that it is only an agent arranging the tickets to the customers for their journey and after handing over the tickets it has no concerned no deficiency in service or any cause of action has been shown in the complaint relating to the OP-2 the complaint is liable to be dismissed as the dispute if any, is interse between the complainant and the OP-1 Airlines. The change in date of travel in the air tickets are done on computer data base of OP-1.

The complainant & OP-1 filed their respective evidence by way of affidavit. The OP-2 i.e. Diplomatic Travels was proceeded Ex-parte on 04/06/2009 as evidence not filed despite opportunity. The complainant and OP-1 filed written submissions.  Final arguments were addressed before the predecessor bench and thereafter notice was issued  to the parties for certain clarifications for 22/09/2017. The case was then listed on 16/01/2018 and the new President joined this Forum, since the predecessor resigned. On 16/01/2018 the case was adjourned on the request of the parties to 10/04/2018 and an application for dismissal of the complaint on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction was moved and matter posted for 11/04/2018 and 02/05/2018. None appeared on 02/05/2018 and 13/07/2018 and the case was listed on 06/08/2018 and on 08/08/2018 the parties addressed final arguments as well as on applications.

We have considered the material placed before us and the arguments of the parties.  Before adverting to issue involved in this petition, it is imperative to mention that our own State Commission in United India insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Gupta in F.A.NO.478/2013 (arising out of the order dated 3/1/2013 passed by predecessor Bench of this Forum) has passed the following orders on 23.3.2018.

“It is clarified that the Ld. District Forum shall decide the question of limitation, Jurisdiction first before proceeding to decide the case on merits”.

 On the issue of  jurisdiction the OP in reply to para 18 of compaint has stated that this Forum does not have the jurisdiction as the complainant has claimed more than 20 lacs, whereas the para 18 in the complaint speaks of the jurisdiction in Delhi and admittedly claim more than 20 lacs in the prayer clause.  The objection of the OP is unsustainable on both the issues i.e. territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction in the premise of facts that initially the case was filed before the Hon’ble State Commission from where  it was  transferred to this Forum  and pass the following orders:-

“In terms of section 14 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act a consumer is entitled to an amount as compensation as to the actual loss or injury suffered by him due to the negligence of the opposite party. Keeping in view the nature of allegations and that the OP No.1 charged 75 Euros unauthorisedly, still the amount of compensation sought by the complainants is astronomically high and has been exaggerated with the sole object of invoking jurisdiction of this Commission. By no stretch of imagination the compensation can be estimated more than Rs. 20 lacs for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction”.

The above order of the Hon’ble State Commission has been reproduced in the written submission filed by OP-1. The objection of the OP regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction is thus rejected. So far the argument on the point of territorial jurisdiction addressed by the Ld. Counsel for OP is only on the premise that the cause of action arose abroad.  In this regard, we are of the considered view the tickets were purchased from Delhi and, therefore, the argument of the OP rejected. 

Now coming to the merits of the case, It is undisputed that the complainants purchased Air Tickets from Delhi for travel to abroad and return. The air journey dated 01/07/2005 was rescheduled to 05/07/2005. The complainants have placed on record the revised itinerary which shows the date of air travel as 05/07/2005 and not 01/07/2005, which was issued by OP-2 i.e. Diplomatic Travels. It is also not disputed that as against four tickets, the endorsement of reschedule date was mentioned only on one ticket.  For endorsement on remaining three tickets, the OP charged 75 Euros for affixing endorsement for reschedule dates. The OP-1 has also offered refund of 75 Euros to the concerned complainants as mentioned in the written statement and evidence and also orally argued. The letter dated 06/02/2006 of OP-2 placed on record by the complainant to the effect that the date of retun journey changed for all the four air tickets from 01/07/2005 to 05/07/2005 before the departure i.e. before 21/06/2005 and hence no date change charges were payable.

It is not the case of OP-1 that the computer data base of the OP-1 did not mention the date of journey as 05/07/2005 and that the rescheduling of the date once by the complainant was not free of charge. Rather the OP-1 focused its argument on the premise of submission that the complainants presented the ticket after departure and so charges of 25 Euro each were levied. We are of the considered view that the arguments is without basis as the OP-1 has not denied that its computer data base   did not indicate the rescheduled date of air journey as 05/07/2005 by the complainants. The endorsement was affixed by the OP-1 only on one air ticket out of four, such an act of omission could not vitiate the revised/rescheduled journey of three of the complainants or could attract levy of rescheduling charges as the computer data base of OP-1 contains the date of air journey as 05/07/2005 in our considered view. We also understand the harassment which would have been faced by the complainants due to paucity of foreign currency for payment of 75 Euros in lieu of which the endorsement was allowed on three tickets.

In view of above discussions, It is clear that the OP adopted unfair trade practice and is also deficient in service and we hold accordingly.  The value of one Euro is Rs. 55/- per Euro as stated by the complainants himself in the prayer clause. The total amount paid by complainant to OP comes to Rs. 4125/-, Accordingly, we direct that Rs. 4125/- be refunded to the complainant by OP. We also award a sum of Rs. 40,000 in lump sum for physical and mental harassment to the complainants. The OP-1 shall comply the orders within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which interest @ 9% on Rs. 44,125/- from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. 04/01/2006 before the Hon’ble State Commission till the date of realization. The OP-1 shall pay litigation cost to complainant to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- within 30 days.

Copy of the order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required. 

Announced in open Forum on  11/10/2018.

The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

File be consigned to record room.

 

 

  (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                  PRESIDENT

              (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                                 (H M VYAS)

                                MEMBER                                                                               MEMBER