DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, CAMP COURT, AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/2018/331

Date of Institution   : 04.05.2018/29.11.2021

Date of Decision    : 06.09.2022

1.Sanya Arora daughter of Sh. Sandeep Arora, resident of H.No. 247, Market Green Avenue, Amritsar.

2.Meenal Mahajan daughter of Sh. Arun Kumar resident of H.No. 1610, Sharif Pura, Amritsar.   

                 …Complainants Versus

1.M/s Goibibo India Pvt. Ltd., 19th Floor, DLF Epitome Building No. 5, Tower A DLF Cyber City, Phase III, Sector-25 Gurgaon-122002, through its Managing Director.

2.Go Airlines (India) Ltd., 1st Floor, C-1, Wadia International Centre (WIC), Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai 400025, India through its Authorized Signatory.    

              …Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 11 & 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Present: Sh. Kartikay Shridhar Adv counsel for complainant.

Ms. Neena Kapoor Adv counsel for O.P-1.

Opposite party No. 2 exparte. 

 

Quorum:-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2.Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member 

 

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER, PRESIDENT): 

1. The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainants have filed the present complaint Under Section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) against M/s Goibibo India Pvt. Ltd., & others (hereinafter referred as opposite parties).

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainants had planned a trip to Goa and booked the flight tickets for the same through the company “goibibo” by its online website for 5.4.2018 & 9.4.2018 for return. It is alleged that itinerary of the flights as mentioned on the tickets on 5.4.2018 flight No. 6-E525 Amritsar to Delhi at 6.45 hrs, flight No. 6-E957 New Delhi to Mumbai at 11.30 hrs, flight No. 6-E981 Mumbai to Goa at 15.45 hrs. It is further alleged that on 9.4.2018 flight No. G-8372 Goa to Mumabi at 18.30 hrs, flight No. 6-E198 Mumbai to New Delhi at 22.15 hrs, flight No. 6-E524 New Delhi to Amritsar at 5.15 hrs am. It is alleged that on 2.4.2018 the complainant No. 2 received an e-mail from “GoAir”airlines giving the intimation that the flight No. G-8372 from Goa to Mumbai scheduled departure on 9.4.2018 has been re-scheduled from 20.10 hrs to 20.15 hrs. It is further alleged that on 6.4.2018 an e-mail was again received by complainant No. 2 intimating them that the flights bearing Nos. 6E 198 & 6E 2524 Mumbai- Delhi Delhi- Amritsar respectively have been rescheduled and the revised time is 22.20hrs & 06.25am respectively. On reaching the Goa airport on 9.4.2018 the complainant were informed that the flight G-8372 Goa to Mumbai has been delayed further by 45 mins there was no prior information regarding this delay at all and the complainant got to know about this on reaching the airport itself. It is further alleged that on reaching the Mumbai airport from the above mentioned flight the complainants were denied boarding to their connecting flights bearing Nos. 6E-198 Mumbai to New Delhi at 22.20.hrs, flight No. 6E-524 New Delhi to Amritsar. Even on repeated requests to the airline no action with regards to boarding were taken, neither were the complainants given a seat for the next flight which the airline was supposed to provide as well as the flights were booked on one ticket and not on separate tickets. It is further alleged that the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 have been highly deficient in providing their services as when the connecting flights are booked on a single ticket it is the duty of the company and the airlines to provide boarding to a substitute flight in case there is a delay in any one of the flights due to any reason not being a fault at the behest of the consumer resulting in missing of the subsequent flights. The complainants eventually had to book another ticket on their own bearing flight No. UK735 also had to bear uncalled for additional expenses of the tickets for the same. The complainants on 9.4.2018 had filed a telephonic complaint to opposite party No. 1 giving them the details of the negligence afforded by the company causing them hardship to which an e-mail reply was sent back assuring that their grievance would be addressed at the earliest but was never looked into, as such the conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.- 

i)To pay an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards mental torture and expenses incurred by the complainants alongwith compensation and costs.  

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party No. 1 appeared and filed written statement by taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds that the present complaint is frivolous and without any basis. It is alleged that the complainants booked Air tickets from Amritsar to Delhi and Delhi to Mumbai and Mumbai to Goa and vice-versa, which were scheduled for 5.4.2018 & 9.4.2018 respectively, through the answering opposite party against which the complainant confirmed Air Tickets and tickets were booked through online website of the answering opposite party. The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party No. 2 rescheduled the flight G-8372 which was scheduled from Goa to Mumbai on 9.4.2018 and after reaching the airport, the complainants were denied for boarding pass in connected flights due to late arrival and due to which, the complainants were compelled to book fresh tickets in order to reach Amritsar. It is further alleged that the role of the opposite party No. 1 is limited to the extent that complainants booked air tickets through the opposite party No. 1 and rest of the dispute is between the complainant and opposite party No. 2. It is submitted that the answering opposite party is a travel service provider and facilitates booking services for its customers. It is further alleged that the terms of the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) Section 3, Series M, Part II bearing No. 23-15/2016-AED issued by the Directorate General, Civil Aviation (DGCA), which determines the liability of Airlines in case of any cancellation or delay of the scheduled flight. It is further alleged that the complainants booked the Air Tickets in question through Online Portal of the answering opposite party and before confirmation the complainant entered into an agreement between the User and the answering opposite party, which specifically talk about the responsibilities on the part of both the parties to the agreement. On merits, the opposite party No. 1 denied the case of the complainants and prayed for the dismissal of complaint. 

4. The opposite party No. 2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 26.6.2018 due to non appearance. 

5. In order to prove the case the complainants tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of airline ticket dated 5.4.2018 & 9.4.2018 Ex.C-1, copy of the e-mail received from Go Air Airline dated 2.4.2018 Ex.C-2, copy of the email received from Indigo Airline dated 6.4.2018 Ex.C-3, copy of email received from Go Air Airline dated 2.4.2018 Ex.C-4, copy of the airline ticket booked on 10.4.2018 from Mumbai to Amritsar Ex.C-5, copy of the email received from Goibibo in reply to the complaint filed dated 9.4.2018 Ex.C-6 and closed the evidence.  

6. To rebut the case of complainant the opposite party No. 1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Ekant Mera authorized signatory Ex.O.P1/1, copy of the general terms of rule and service of Goibibo Ex.O.P1/2 and closed the evidence. 

7. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents placed on record by the parties. 

8. Ld. Counsel for complainants argued that the complainants had planned a trip to Goa and booked the flight tickets through the company “goibibo” by its online website for 5.4.2018 & 9.4.2018 for return i.e. Ex.C-1. It is argued that itinerary of the flights as mentioned on the tickets on 5.4.2018 flight No. 6-E525 Amritsar to New Delhi at 6.45 hrs, flight No. 6-E957 New Delhi to Mumbai at 11.30 hrs, flight No. 6-E981 Mumbai to Goa at 15.45 hrs. It is further argued that on 9.4.2018 flight No. G-8372 Goa to Mumabi at 18.30 hrs, flight No. 6-E198 Mumbai to New Delhi at 22.15 hrs, flight No. 6-E524 New Delhi to Amritsar at 5.15 hrs am. It is also argued that on 2.4.2018 the complainant No. 2 received an e-mail Ex.C-2 from “GoAir”airlines giving the intimation that the flight No. G-8372 from Goa to Mumbai scheduled departure on 9.4.2018 has been re-scheduled from 20.10 hrs to 20.15 hrs. It is further argued that on 6.4.2018 an e-mail Ex.C-3 was again received by complainant No. 2 intimating them that the flights bearing Nos. 6E 198 & 6E 2524 Mumbai- Delhi, Delhi- Amritsar respectively have been rescheduled and the revised time is 22.20hrs & 06.25am respectively and on reaching the Goa airport on 9.4.2018 the complainant were informed vide Ex.C-4 that the flight G-8372 Goa to Mumbai has been delayed further by 45 mins there was no prior information regarding this delay at all and the complainant got to know about this on reaching the airport itself. It is further argued that on reaching the Mumbai airport from the above mentioned flight the complainants were denied boarding to their connecting flights bearing Nos. 6E-198 Mumbai to New Delhi at 22.20.hrs, flight No. 6E-524 New Delhi to Amritsar. Ld. Counsel for complainants further argued that despite repeated requests to the airline no action with regards to boarding were taken, neither were the complainants given a seat for the next flight which the airline was supposed to provide as the flights were booked on one ticket and not on separate tickets. It is further argued that the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 have been highly deficient in providing their services as the connecting flights are booked on a single ticket and it is the duty of the company and the airlines to provide boarding to a substitute flight in case there is a delay in any one of the flights due to any reason. Ld. Counsel for complainants also argued that the complainants eventually had to book another ticket bearing flight No. UK735 i.e. Ex.C-5 also had to bear uncalled for additional expenses of the tickets for the same and the complainants on 9.4.2018 had filed a telephonic complaint to opposite party No. 1 giving them the details of the negligence afforded by the company causing them hardship to which an e-mail reply was sent back i.e. Ex.C-6 assuring that their grievance would be addressed at the earliest but was never looked into, as such the conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 

9. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for opposite party No. 1 argued that the complainants booked Air tickets from Amritsar to Delhi and Delhi to Mumbai and Mumbai to Goa and vice-versa, which were scheduled for 5.4.2018 & 9.4.2018 respectively against which the complainants confirmed Air Tickets and tickets were booked through online website of the opposite party No. 1. It is further argued that the opposite party No. 2 rescheduled the flight G-8372 which was scheduled from Goa to Mumbai on 9.4.2018 and after reaching the airport, the complainants were denied for boarding pass in connected flights due to late arrival and due to which, the complainants were compelled to book fresh tickets in order to reach Amritsar. It is further argued that the opposite party No. 1 is a travel service provider and facilitates booking services for its customers and role of the opposite party No. 1 is limited to the extent that complainants booked air tickets through the opposite party No. 1 and rest of the dispute is between the complainant and opposite party No. 2. It is also argued that the cancellation of flight by the official of the opposite party No. 2 is solely attributable to the opposite party No. 2 and the opposite party No. 1 is no manner, liable to compensate any amount to the complainants. It is further argued that the terms of the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) Section 3, Series M, Part II bearing No. 23-15/2016-AED issued by the Directorate General, Civil Aviation (DGCA), which determines the liability of Airlines in case of any cancellation or delay of the scheduled flight. 

10. In order to prove their case the complainants have placed on record copy of air ticket Ex.C-1 which shows that the complainants have booked the air tickets for 5.4.2018 & 9.4.2018 i.e. on 5.4.2018 flight No. 6-E525 Amritsar to New Delhi at 6.45 hrs, flight No. 6-E957 New Delhi to Mumbai at 11.30 hrs, flight No. 6-E981 Mumbai to Goa at 15.45 hrs and on 9.4.2018 flight No. G-8372 Goa to Mumabi at 18.30 hrs, flight No. 6-E198 Mumbai to New Delhi at 22.15 hrs and flight No. 6-E524 New Delhi to Amritsar at 5.15 hrs am. The complainants have further placed on record copies of e-mails Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4, which shows that the intimation was given to the complainants regarding the rescheduled departure of the flights. The complainants have also placed on record copy of airline ticket dated 10.4.2018 Ex.C-5, which shows that the complainants had to book another ticket bearing flight No. UK735 and had to bear the additional expenses for an amount of Rs. 14,410/- because the complainant were denied boarding to their connected flight bearing No. 6E-198 Mumabi to New Delhi and flight No. 6E-524 New Delhi to Amritsar. However, it is the case of the opposite party No. 1 that the opposite party No. 1 is a travel service provider and facilitates booking services for its customers and role of the opposite party No. 1 is limited to the extent that complainants booked air tickets through the opposite party No. 1 and rest of the dispute is between the complainant and opposite party No. 2.  On the other hand, in order to rebut the case of the complainants there is nothing on record on behalf of opposite party No. 2 because the opposite party No. 2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 26.6.2018. Therefore, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 2 by denying the complainants to boarding their connected flights and by not giving proper services to the complainants, due to which the complainants had to bought another ticket on flight No. UK735 for boarding the flight from Mumbai to Amritsar and paid Rs. 14,410/-.

11. In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party No. 2 is directed to pay the amount of Rs. 14,410/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint till realization. The opposite party No. 2 is further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- on account of compensation and Rs. 3,300/- on account of litigation expenses to the complainants. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of order will be supplied to the parties by District Consumer Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar.  

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

       6th Day of September, 2022 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President             

 

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member