Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1156/2010

D.P. Agarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Indian Airlines & Ors - Opp.Party(s)

28 Mar 2019

ORDER

 

                           CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

                          (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

                         ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

                                                                  NEW DELHI-110001

 

 

 Case No.C.C./1156 /2010                                                 Dated:

   In the matter of

Sh. D. P. Agarwal

  S/o late Sh. P.D. Agarwal

 19, OL of Palm Marg,

   Vasant Vihar, New Delhi

   Through SPA holder

    Sh. N.S. Rathore

                                                                                                …… Complainant

          Versus  

1. Inidan Airlines / Air India

Through Managing Director,

Jeevan Bharati Bldg.,

Sansad Marg,

New Delhi, India

 

2. Airline Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd.

Through Managing Director

42, Zamrudpur, Community Centre

Kailash Colony Extension

New Delhi

                                                                                           …….Opposite Parties

 

 

 

 

            H.M. VYAS - MEMBER

                                          ORDER

 

  The complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act has been filed  by the complainant through Attorney Sh. Narendra Singh Rathore alleging that the complainant is a frequent flyer of the OP Airlines since 1965.  The complainant with his wife and booked a flight from Delhi - New York – Delhi flight in business class of flight no. AI-101 and AI-102 through OP-2 (agent of OP-1) as per the scheme and confirmation received from OP-2.  The tour was from 26.09.2009 to 08.10.2009 The scheme included to and fro Airport transfers by Limousine as complimentary.

It is alleged that on 08.10.2009, the complainant with his wife had to board the flight from New York to Delhi but the Limousine did not turn up to pick him from his hotel to JFK Airport and nobody responded on contact and directed each time to dial a different number.  The staff/persons of OP-1 did not even understood that if Limousine was not available then the complainant should have been informed in advance for making further arrangements to reach Airport.  Left with no alternative, the complainant hired a private taxi who charged him USD 65, little more than normal taxi fare to reach airport.  However, on reaching JFK Airport the complainant contacted the Airport Manager Sh Anil Sabharwal who helped him boarding the flight. 

The OP in response to complainant’s letter dated 12.10.2009 and 17.07.2009 informed through email that they were investigating the matter and revert back after investigation.  The alleged incidence and inconvenience caused  to the complainant was at the behest of the OP. The complainant alleged that they had undergone traumatic experience with deep mental depressions and harassed by  the OP alleging that the OP is guilty of deficiency in service causing mental agony, following prayer has been made :-

1. Direct the respondent  No. 1 or No. 2 or / and  both to refund an amount of USD  65 spend by the complainant along with refund of ticket amount  Rs. 2,2,500/- along with an interest  of 24% per annum  till  the realization of the said amount;
2. Direct the respondent No. 1 or No.2 or/ and  both to give a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards  the damages / compensation  on account of agony suffered  by the complainant twice;
3. Direct the respondent No. 1 or No. 2 or / and  both to pay the cost of the present proceedings incurred by the complainant;
4. Any other further relief with this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit think in the circumstances of the case.

 

The OPs were noticed. The OP-2 stated that  it was acting as  agent of OP-1 and prayed to be excluded from the proceedings . The OP-2 was then exempted vide orders dated 22.03.2012. None appeared for OP-1 and was proceeded ex-party on 05.04.2013.  The complainant filed ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit.

We have considered the material placed before us and the arguments  of complainant  with relevant provisions of law.

The OP-1 was proceeded ex-party on 05.04.2013 and that the AR of OP-2 was exempted on 22.03.2012, the contentions of the complainant have remained unrebutted. There is no reason to disbelieve the affidavit of the complainant.

Perusal of the record before us suggests and makes it clear that the complainant  had performed  the journey to and fro the journey and has boarded the flight  both ways. The claim of the complainant  for refund of the cost of the Air tickets is not sustainable in these premises of facts. In view of forgoings,  it is clear that as per the scheme of OP-1 the complainant was to be provided services of the Limousine for to and fro journey between hotel and the airport and OP-1 failed  failed to provide the same on 08/10/2009.  We, therefore,  hold the OP-1 to be deficient in service and direct as under:-

1. Direct to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- inclusive of the taxi fare and litigation cost.        

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

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

Announced in open Forum on 28/03/2019

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

File be consigned to record room.

 

 

                                                    (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                                             PRESIDENT

 

   (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                            (HM VYAS)

        MEMBER                                                                            MEMBER