ORDER

BY SRI.H.R.SRINIVAS, PRESIDENT.

This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant U/S Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the Opposite Party (herein referred in short as O.P) alleging the deficiency in service in not allowing the daughter of the complainant and her friend to travel in the airlines though amount paid and ticket reserved and for refund of the amount paid for purchasing fresh ticket i.e., Rs.29,420/- along with damages of Rs.3,00,000/- for the inconvenience, physical discomfort and mental agony caused, for Rs.2,00,000/- for damages for poor performance in the Moot Court Competition due to nervousness fatigue disorientation due to night travel, for Rs.50,000/- as legal cost other reliefs as the Commission deems fit.

2.      The brief facts of the complaint are that; complainant is the father of 1 Miss Bhavana. He booked ticket on 13.02.2019 for his daughter and her friend, Miss Ananya Sharma to travel from Delhi to Bangalore on 19.02.2019 in the flight operated by OP 1 by paying Rs.11,046/- towards the ticket cost through his credit card. Miss Bhavana and Miss Ananya Sharma were to attend the Moot Court Competition on 20.02.2019 at NLSIU, Bangalore, the date of travel that is 19.02.2019 the said 2 person reached airport, Delhi to board flight Indigo 6e2306 to departure at 17.05 pm. They were shocked and horrified to know that the reservation is not confirmed as the airlines not received the payments. When the passenger repeatedly confirmed the payments made indigo authorities neither allowed to board flight nor made to travel in the 2 subsequent flights which was to depart on the same day. The airline authorities insisting them to book ticket a fresh. There was no other option for and paid an amount of Rs.29,420/- and booked the flight to Bangalore via Ahmedabad to reach @ 5.25 am on 20.02.2019. On 11.03.2019 OP through its customer care has admitted the receipt of payment for PNR for booking reference and there has been an unknown error because of that ticket was not confirmed. The same cannot be accepted due to the advance in technological word. OP is totally depending on internet booking and there can be no system failure. It appears that OP has over booked to ensure the flight in full, so that they can make money on last minute cancellation. The same put the passenger to emotional trauma and mental agony and they were complied to travel over night to an unknown city and subjected to ordered. It is cruel unjust on the part of OPs to deny to board the flight and also in not making alternate arrangement. He has to issue legal notice which was served on OP but failed to give a positive response and hence the complaint.  There is deficiency in service on the part of the OP and hence prayed to allow the complaint.

3.      Upon the service of notice, OP appeared before the Commission and filed its version contending that the complainant is neither a passenger nor an accompanying passenger or there is contract between the complainant and the OPs. Complainant has no right to file the complaint on behalf of Miss Bhavana and Miss Ananya Sharma. Though on 13.02.2019 the passenger booked the tickets the booking was not complete or confirmed as payment was not received on OP1, within the hold period, for the reasons best known to the passengers. Though PNR was generated for the passenger on hold booking, email was sent to the registered email on @ 15.11 hours informing that the booking was pending and kept on hold for the payment of Rs.11,046/-. Despite of providing time for the passengers to make payment, they failed to make payment. In view of the same, booking got automatically cancelled. They have sent an email informing of the cancellation of the payment made. There was no follow up from the passengers. Complainant has failed to place document regarding confirmation of the booking generated. In view of the same, the passengers were not allowed to check-in for the flight. Complainant wrote letter seeking clarification on the deduction of Rs.11,046/- paid towards cancellation of booking. The call center shared the information that no amount was received by them and also did not receive the amount within the period on hold. The complainant provided transaction ID in respect of the deduction made from his account and when checked by them which was found that the error in the payment gateway used by the complainant and not under the control of the OP.  Amount of Rs.11,046/- was not received by them till holding period. Therefore when the holding period expired, booking got cancelled automatically. Since they received the amount after the cancellation of the booking, the refund was automatically processed and intimated through email to complainant, in this regard. Complainant has suppressed the material information and they have acted strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract which is binding. The technical error at the time of payment is beyond the control of Interglobe Aviation Limited and it cannot be hold responsible for complainant’s own failure to complete the booking formalities and failure to make payment against the booking.  Since no money was received on the date, by the Interglobe Aviation Limited. The complaint is nothing but an attempts to unjustly enrich himself.

4.      It is contended that they received the payment of Rs.11,046/- after cancellation of the ticket booked and the name was intimated to the complainant by this call center staff and refund of the same was automatically processed and also through email dated 11.03.2019 and when complainant contended the call centre, he was given detail information nor refund on There is no in deficiency on refund on 15.04.2019.  Hence there is no deficiency on their part by denying all the allegations made in each and every para of the complaint, prayed to dismiss the same.

5.      In order to prove the case, both parties filed their affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1) Whether the complainants have proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2) Whether the complainants are entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

6.     Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO.1:            In the Affirmative

POINT NO.2:            Partly in the affirmative.

                                For the following.

REASONS

7.     POINT No.1:-

   Perused the complaint, version, affidavit evidence and the documents produced by respective parties.  It is an admitted fact that the complainant booked two tickets on 13.02.2019 for the travel of his daughter Ms.Bhavana and one Ms.Ananya Sharma from Delhi to Bangalore, to travel on 19.02.2019.  The amount of Rs.11,046/- has been paid by using the credit card of the complainant.  Afterwards ticket is also issued stating that as per Ex.P1 payment status is mentioned as complete and PNR also mentioned as MCHFFF.

        8.     It is further specific case of the complainant that when his daughter Bhavan and her classmate Ananya Sharma went to board the flight on 19^th February 2019, they were denied the boarding and did not allow them to board the flight on the ground that the airlines did not receive the amount and hence ticket has been cancelled.

        9.     It is the specific case of OP that though PNR was raised since they did not receive the amount of Rs.11,046/- within the holding period of 15:31 hours on that day, the ticket has been automatically cancelled.  Hence they justified their act of denying boarding to the passengers. Series of correspondences has taken place between the complainant and the OP, wherein in one of the correspondences OP has admitted that there was some technical glitch in their computer/internet system and hence the payment made by the complainant did not showing the credit and hence they denied the boarding.  In other correspondences and the bank statement produced and also from the version, OP has refunded Rs.11,046/- to the account of the complainant that too after much email correspondences.

        10.   When all these facts and circumstances are taken into consideration, and in particular Ex.P1 the ticket generated by Indigo airlines, it is clear that payment status is mentioned as complete.  When that being the case, it cannot be held that OP did not receive the amount. Otherwise the system could not have generated the ticket. Further the refund of the amount to the complainant also amplifies that OP received the amount and after much correspondence, has refunded the same. In view of this not allowing Ms.Bhavana and Ms.Ananya Sharma to board the flight inspite of issuing the ticket after receiving the amount, amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence we answer point No.1 in the affirmative.

        11.   In view of denying the boarding to the flight to which complainant had booked for travel, and even the passengers were not allowed and accommodated in the next flights, and they were asked to purchase tickets to Bangalore and as a last resort as they had to attend the academic session at Bangalore, they booked a flight to Bangalore enroot Ahmadabad, which was the next immediately available flight, for which as per the documents filed, paid a sum of Rs.29,420/- as air fair which is an additional burden to them. Since as we have held point No.1 in the affirmative and as already complainant has received from OP Rs.11,046/- the balance out of Rs.29,420/- being the additional amount for the flight ticket paid by the complainant /passengers is to be reimbursed to the complainant along with interest at 12% pa., on the said amount from 19.02.2019 till the payment of the entire amount.

        12.   It is contended and claimed by the complainant that as a result of denying the boarding to the flight, the passengers could not reach Bangalore to prepare themselves for the academic and as a result there was insecurity, inconvenience, physical discomfort and hardship and mental agony caused to them for which has claimed Rs.3,00,000/- as damages and since due to the said inconvenience they could not perform well in the moot court competition as a result has claimed Rs.2,00,000/- as damages and Rs.50,000/- towards expenses. No material has been placed in respect of the above. Inspite of it, inconvenience is caused and they were subjected to mental agony, physical hardship and stress which might have affected their performance in the moot court. In view of this, we are of the opinion that a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards damages on both counts and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses and cost if imposed on OP and direct OP to pay the same would meet the ends of justice. Hence we answer point No.2 partly in the affirmative.

13.   OP has taken up the contention that complainant has no locus-standi to file the complaint, and the passengers have not been made as parties and hence the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and the same is liable to dismissed.  On perusing the definition of a consumer as denied u/s 2(1)(d)(2) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986;

“any person hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the service ……

14.   In view of this, the complainant has hired/availed services of OP for the benefit of his daughter and her friend by paying the flight charges through his credit card and that too from Bangalore and hence he becomes a consumer under the act and this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as part of cause of action has taken place within the limits of this Commission.  Further the Consumer Protection Act defines as to who is a Complaint? A consumer can file the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.  In view of the complainant becoming a consumer as held above, this complaint filed by the father of Ms.Bhavana is perfectly within the provisions of Consumer Protection Act and hence without participation of the passengers in the proceedings of this complaint, we are of the opinion that this complaint is not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and hence the contention raised by OP in this regard is not acceptable and hence the same is rejected. In the result we proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

1. Complaint is allowed in part with cost.
2. OP is directed to pay Rs.18,374/-       (29,420-11,046) with interest at 12% p.a., from 19.02.2019 till payment of the entire amount.
3. OP is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards damages and  Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
4. The OP is further directed comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this Commission within 15 days thereafter.
5. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

Note:You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this 09^th day of December 2020)

MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Ex P1: Copy of the ticket booking dated 13.02.2019

Ex P2: Copy of the credit card statement issued by Canara Bank

Ex. P3: Copy of the refund details dated 14.03.2019

Ex P4: Copy of the Air Ticket booked alternatively in another flight

Ex P5: Copy of the email correspondences with OP

Es P6: Copy of the legal notice

Ex P7: Copy of the reply issued by the OP

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

RW-1: Sri.Rahul Kumar

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

Ex R1: Copy of the letter of authorization

Ex R2: Copy of the letter incorporation issued by ministry of affairs Govt. of India

Ex R3: Copy of the reservation summary or PNR No.MCHFFF

Ex R4: Copy of the conditions of carriage

Ex R5: Copy of the certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act.

MEMBER                                PRESIDENT