Delhi

New Delhi

CC/426/2010

Shashank Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. High Flyer & Anr. - Opp.Party(s)

24 Jan 2020

ORDER

 

 

   CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC. 426 /2010                                                                  Dated:

In the matter of:

Sh. Shashank Gupta

S/o Dr. Vijay Prakash Gupta

R/o C-250, Shalimar Garden Extn.-II,

Sahibabad(U.P.)                              

                                                   ……..COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

1.           M/s High Flyer

(Traveling Agent)

Having its office at:

100 M.M. Connaught Circus,

New Delhi-110001.

           Through its principle officer              ……………OPPOSITE PARTY No. 1

 

 

2.       The General Manager 

                 (Commercial)

India Airlines (Air India)

IGI Airport Terminal-I, Palam,

New Delhi-110037

          ……………OPPOSITE PARTY No. 2

 

H.M. VYAS-MEMBER 

 ORDER

In brief the text of the complainant is that the complainant alleged gross deficiency in services against the OP in respect of to and fro journey from New Delhi to Tucson. The date of departure to USA was 06/08/2008 and the return was for dated 27/09/2008. The complainant booked confirmed tickets. The deficiency alleged relates to the return travel of the complainant from Tucson to New Delhi. It is alleged that the complainant booked confirmed tickets for dated 27/09/2008 which was initially through United Airlines flight no. UA-6452 at 10:55 in the morning at Tucson (USA) to Los Angeles (USA) and thereafter the connecting flight was of Air India Flight AI136 from Los Angeles (USA) to New Delhi at 19:10 in the evening.

Before departure the complainant called the OP-2 at Los Angeles (USA) on phone and was informed that the route of the return travel had been changed and the complainant has to catch Air India Flight  from Los Angeles to Singapore and Singapore to New Delhi. On 26/09/2008 the complainant from Nogales contacted the official of OP-2 at Los Angeles and was informed that the United Air flight UA6452  starting from Tucson to Los Angeles was scheduled to start at 10:55 and the connected Air India flight from Los Angeles to Singapore as per changed schedule is to started at 0:55 which was 10 hours prior to scheduled time of the United Air lines Flight UA-6452 from Tucson to Los Angles. The complainant was very disturbed, and having no other alternative asked the officials of OP-2 who informed that they could book the complainant for 5^th or 7^th October, 2008; but the flight of Air India could only be shifted and there would be no change in the flight of united Airlines from Tucson to Los Angeles. Further, the complainant would have to travel to Los Angles by the already booked flight and stay at Los Angeles till further confirmation of booking to New Delhi. Further, if the complainant has no arrangement to stay at Los Angeles, then he could go personally to Los Angles for further confirmation of his ticket to New Delhi for 5^th & 7^th October, 2008 at his own expenses as the ticket already purchased, happened to be  paper ticket and the paper ticket cannot be altered to any other flight.

The complainant called his parents in Delhi to help him. The official of OP-1 in Delhi were contacted who expressed their inability to help and directed the complainant’s father to contact its principle i.e. OP-2 at New Delhi. Accordingly, the OP-2 was contacted on 27/09/2008 and they accepted their mistake of wrong booking for 27/09/2008 on the changed schedule. The OP-2 suggested that the complainant would have to go los Angeles to have his paper tickets changed. The officials of OP-2 were informed that the complainant was alone in the foreign country and did not have enough finance for the stay or to make expenses for stay and to visit los Angeles for change of ticket. The officials of OP-2 expressed inability to help. The complainant’s father contacted the Higher Officials of OP-2 one Mrs. Zaideka who directed the father of the complainant to approach officials at New Delhi and assured that ticket could be booked for on 02/10/2008.  Ultimately, the tickets on 02/10/2008 was booked from Los Angeles to New York to Delta Air Lines and from New York by Delhi by Air India flight but informed that for taking the said ticket the complainant would have to go to los Angeles for taking changed tickets as the earlier booked ticket were paper tickets. The timings of the OP-2 at Los Angeles was 10.00am to 5pm and the schedule time of the flight from Los Angles at 6.30 on 02/10/2008 and therefore, the complainant had no other alternative had to start on 01/10/2008 by purchasing a fresh ticket from Tucson to Los Angles by spending 175 USD from his own pocket. The converted tickets for 02/10/2008 were taken but the complainant had to wait till the next day up to the time of flight and security check in the outside lobby at Loa Angles as the complainant had no means to arrange any accommodation .

It is also stated that the complainant during the return journey to Delhi also suffered a lot as he was provided with non-vegetarian meal instead of Vegetarian meal which was hurting to his religious feeling and resultantly starved during the flight.

ON reaching India he again had under gone another shock as his baggage/ luggage was missing and not delivered to him though he waited for a long time there at Air Port. The officials of OP-2 asked the complainant to enquire about the baggage later. Prayer for Rs. 32,900/- besides damages for mental tension quantify Rs. 8,00,000/- and cost of legal notice Rs. 05,500/- has been made.

The OP-1 & 2 were proceeded with ex-parte on 20/08/2010 after notice.  However, the OP-2 filed appeal before Hon’ble State Commission and vide order dated 30/8/2012 in FA no. 2012/431, the orders as against the OP-2 was set aside and the case was remanded back.

OP-2 contested the complaint and filed written statement/ version denied all allegation leveled by the complainant. It is stated that the complainant purchased ticket form OP-1 for Rs. 58,745/- for travel from New Delhi to Tucson, USA via Los Angeles on 06/08/2008. His return journey was on 27/09/2008 (ticket no. -4426865091) on United Air Lines Flight no. UA6452 at 10.55 am form Tucson to Los Angeles and form Los Angeles to New Delhi via AI-136 at 7.10pm. The flight AI-136 was suspended w.e.f. 10/09/2008 and the passengers of said flight were rebooked for the same day  on different routes i.e Los Angeles-New Delhi via Singapore or Los Angeles to New Delhi via New York. The OP-2 in para F of the preliminary objections has stated to have informed the rescheduling of the flight to New Delhi much prior to the complainant departure date and relied on annexure OP3. Annexure OP3 is the mail archived on 10/22/12 (dated 22/10/2012) referring to the visit of the complainant on 01/10/2008 for a travel on 02/10/2008. It also speaks of rescheduling of the flight AI136 w.e.f. 10/09/2008 and all the  passengers booked tickets for this flight were rebooked and reissued tickets vide the same from different route i.e. LAX/SIN/IND or LAX/NYC/IND etc. Regarding loss of baggage, the OP-2 has stated that the complainant has not filed any complaint to the OP-2, nor any receipt thereof.

Regarding the supply of non-vegetarian food instead of Vegetarian food. It is stated that the complainant had not given such specific instructions  to provide vegetarian food.

 The complainant and OP-2 filed their respective evidence by way of affidavit. The OP-1 was proceeded Exparte on 20/08/2010. Oral argument were also addressed.  

We have considered the material placed before us and the submissions made on behalf of parties with relevant provisions of law.

The copy of the rebooked tickets clearly show that the connecting flight was to depart before 10 hours of the arrival of the flight which was issued by the OP-2 after rescheduling of the original air India flight. On account of erroneous booking of the connecting flight compelled the complainant to stay there for 5 days more and had to make expenses beside facing mental and physical harassment and agony. The bald denial of the allegations on the part of the OP-2 is rejected.

We therefore hold the OP-2 to be gross deficient in service and accordingly directed as under:-

1. OP-2 to pay to the complainant a sum Rs. 32,900/- with 9% simple interest per annum with effect from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 30/03/2010 till realization.
2. OP-2 to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost and for mental tension.

The order shall be complied within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of this order.

A copy of this order be sent to each of the both parties free of cost by post as statutorily required.  

Orders be also sent to www.confonet.nic.in.

File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced in open Forum on 24/01/2020.

 

 

 

      (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

      PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                                                      (H M VYAS)

            MEMBER                                                                                               MEMBER