Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

390/2008

A.H.Vengada Valavan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S.Make My trip.Com & Jet Airways - Opp.Party(s)

V.Yuvakumar,A.K.Lakshmipathy

06 Jul 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 28.07.2008

                                                                          Date of Order : 06.07.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.390 /2008

DATED THIS FRIDAY THE 06^TH DAY OF JULY 2018

                                 

Mr. A.H. Vengada Valavan,

S/o. Mr. A.K. Hanumantharayan,

Proprietor, M/s. Sabisu,

No.6, Azhagiri Nagar, 1^st Street,

Vadapalani,

Chennai – 600 026.                                                       .. Complainant.                                                        

 

..Versus..

 

1. M/s. MAKE MY TRIP.COM

No.103, Udyog Vihar,

Phase – 1,

Gurgaon,

Haryana – 122 016.

 

2. M/s. JET AIRWAYS INDIA LTD.,

(Formerly Air Sahara),

S.M. Center,

Moralnaka Andheripula Road,

Andheri West,

Mumbai  - 54.

 

3. M/s. JET LITES (I) LTD.,

(Formerly Air Sahara),

Moralnaka Andheripula Road,

Andheri West,

Mumbai  - 54.                                                     ..  Opposite parties.

          

Counsel for complainant                   :  M/s. A.K. Lakshmipathy &

                                                              another

Counsel for 1^st opposite party          :  M/s. V. Selvaraj & another

Counsel for 2 & 3^rd opposite parties :  M/s. Gupta & another

 

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to refund a sum of Rs.7,700/- towards the Air ticket charges and another sum of Rs.3,500/- paid towards rescheduling the ticket and to pay a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service with cost of the complaint.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

The complainant submits that he booked  two air tickets on 23.08.2006 with the 1^st opposite party for the travel of Mr. Kuppa Gounder Hanumantharayan aged about 76 years and Mrs. Dhanammal Hanumantharayan aged about 70 years respectively for travelling from Delhi to Chennai on 30.09.2006 at 7.10 hours in the morning.   Further the complainant submits that due to the change of time for travel programme on 30.09.2006, the complainant requested the 1^st opposite party to change and reschedule the ticket by 17.15 hours on 30.09.2006 through Email.  The 1^st opposite party sent a reply demanding additional payment of Rs.3,500/- for such rescheduling.  Further the complainant submits that the 1^st opposite party had also confirmed the travel on 30.09.2006 at 17.15 hours wherein it is stated as “Status confirmed”.  Further the complainant submits that on 30.09.2006, when his parents who are the Senior citizens suffering from Diabetics, Glaucoma and Hyper Tension etc arrived at Indira Gandhi International Airport by 3.00 P.M. were directed to go to Domestic Airport Delhi to catch the Sahara Airlines flight.  As such, the parents of the complainant rushed to the Domestic Airport, Delhi.    But to the shock and surprise, in the Domestic Airport the air travel was denied stating that the ticket was not reserved for the flight scheduled to 17.15 hours on 30.09.2006.  Hence at this old age, the parents of the complainant hired a cab and reached New Delhi Railway Station and travelled in the train in unreserved compartment with great difficulty.  The act of the opposite party after issuing the confirmation ticket denying to travel in the flight amounts to deficiency in service which caused great mental agony. The complainant issued email complaint for which, the opposite party sent reply tendering apology.  Thereafter, the complainant issued legal notice  dated:18.2.2008  since the opposite parties has not responded and turned hostile thereafter, this complaint is filed.

2.     The brief averments in the written version filed by the  1^st opposite party is as follows:

The 1^st opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The 1^st opposite party submits that the present complaint is not maintainable since, this Forum is having no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case.   The 1^st opposite party cannot be held liable because the tickets could not be rescheduled due to the non-availability of the tickets. They had not issued any e-ticket confirming reservation to the complainant due to non-availability of the ticket after receiving extra amount from the complainant.  The complainant sent an email on 13.09.2006 to the opposite party requesting date of change required is 01.10.2006 before noon.  As a reply the opposite party sent an email mentioning the extra charges to be collected for date change.  The complainant sent an mail dated:16.09.2006 accepting the payment terms.  For this mail, the opposite party had sent travel itinerary to the complainant mentioning the details of flight availability, status of ticket etc.  Further the 1^st opposite party states that the reschedule ticket issued on itinerary basis and there was non availability of tickets.   The amount of Rs.3,500/- charged by the 1^st opposite party was refunded to the complainant on 17.10.2007 by way of electronic transfer through bank directly to the complainant’s account.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

3.     The brief averments in the written version filed by the  2^nd opposite party is as follows:

The 2^nd opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The 2^nd opposite party submits that it is no way connected to the present case on hand as the complainant has not availed any kind of service from the answering opposite party nor has the answering opposite party in any way provided any kind of services to the complainant.  Hence it is stated that the answering opposite party is not in a position to reply to the complaint categorically.  The 2^nd opposite party states that the present complaint ought to have filed as against Jetlite (formerly known as Air Sahara) having its registered office at New Delhi and not against Jet Airways (India) Ltd.   the 2^nd opposite party is wrongly impleaded as a party to this complaint.   The present complaint is not maintainable against the 2^nd opposite party and is liable to be dismissed with cost.

4.     The brief averments in the written version filed by the  3^rd  opposite party is as follows:

The 3^rd opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The 3^rd opposite party is a scheduled Airline and is engaged in the business of operating its flights under the Flight Code S2 and document / Ticket code 705 on various domestic sectors and on one  international destination.   Whereas, Jet Airways (India) Limited is operating its flights under the flight code 9W and document / Ticket Code 589 to all its destinations respectively.  The 3^rd opposite party is a separate Legal entity from the 2^nd opposite party and both have separate fleet of aircrafts, operating licenses, account books etc.  As the flight was operated by “Air Sahara” which is now Jet Lite (India) Ltd., Jet Airways (India) Ltd. has no role to play and is not necessary party and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed for mis-joinder of parties.  The request for rescheduling of the tickets of the parents of the complainant was taken on the request of the complainant himself and that no confirmed ticket for the subsequent flight was issued by the 1^st opposite party.  Hence there was no occasion or reason for the answering 3^rd opposite party to be involved in rescheduling of the itinerary as has been alleged by the complainant.   Further the 3^rd opposite party submits that all the existing airlines, including the answering opposite parties and the travel/ ticket agents work through the mechanism of BSP (Billing & Settlement Plan).  BSP is a system designed.  BSP had simplified the process for the BSP Travel agents i.e. agents issue one sales report and remit one amount to central point, Neutral Standard Traffic Documents (STD) had replaced dedicated airline ticket stocks.  Furthermore, participation in a BSP is open to all airlines serving the country or area concerned.   All IATA Accredited Agents in BSP country of operation are automatically eligible for participation in a BSP.  When a new BSP commence operations in a country, all agents are notified by IATA and invite to participate to facilitate and simplify the selling, reporting and remitting procedure of IATA Accredited Passenger Sales Agents, as well as improve financial control and cash flow of BSP Airlines.  It is submitted that there was no agreement between the Make My Trip (India) Ltd. and then Air Sahara for selling of tickets; hence no principal-agent relationship exists.  However, ticketing is done through the BSP link only.  The 1^st opposite party in his reply statement has also averred that the charges had already been refunded to the complainant.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 3^rd opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

5.   In order to prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A20 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the 1^st opposite party is filed and no documents filed and marked on the side of the 1^st opposite party. Proof affidavit of the 2^nd opposite party is filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 are filed and marked on the side of the 2^nd opposite party. Proof affidavit of the 3^rd opposite party is filed and document Ex.B4 is filed and marked on the side of the 3^rd opposite party.

6.     The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.7,700/- paid towards air ticket and another sum of Rs.3,500/- paid towards rescheduling the ticket as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.19,80,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service with cost as prayed for?

7.     On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Heard the complainant’s Counsel also.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written versions, proof affidavits, documents etc.  The complainant pleaded and contended that admittedly, he booked  two air tickets on 23.08.2006 with the 1^st opposite party for the travel of Mr. Kuppa Gounder Hanumantharayan aged about 76 years and Mrs. Dhanammal Hanumantharayan aged about 70 years respectively for travelling from Delhi to Chennai on 30.09.2006 at 7.10 hours in the morning.   Further the contention of the complainant is that due to the change of time for travel programme on 30.09.2006, the complainant requested the 1^st opposite party to change and reschedule the ticket by 17.15 hours on 30.09.2006 as per Ex.A3 Email.  The 1^st opposite party sent a reply demanding additional payment of Rs.3,500/- for such rescheduling as per Ex.A4, Ex.A5 & Ex.A6.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the 1^st opposite party had also confirmed the travel on 30.09.2006 at 17.15 hours as per Ex.A7 wherein it is stated as “Status confirmed”.   Further the contention of the complainant is that on 30.09.2006, when his parents, who are the Senior citizens suffering from Diabetics, Glaucoma and Hyper Tension etc arrived at Indira Gandhi International Airport by 3.00 P.M. were directed to go Domestic Airport Delhi to catch the Sahara Airlines flight.  As such, the parents of the complainant rushed to the Domestic Airport, Delhi.    But to the shock and surprise, in the Domestic Airport the air travel was denied stating that the ticket was not reserved for the flight scheduled to 17.15 hours on 30.09.2006.  Hence at this old age, the parents of the complainant hired a cab and reached New Delhi Railway Station and travelled in the train in unreserved compartment with great difficulty.  The act of the opposite party after issuing the confirmation ticket Ex.A7 denying to travel in the flight amounts to deficiency in service which caused great mental agony.   The complainant issued Ex.A8 email complaint for which, the opposite party sent reply Ex.A9 tendering apology.  Thereafter, the complainant issued legal notice  dated:18.02.2008  but the opposite parties has not responded and turned hostile.  Hence the complainant filed this complaint for the refund of a sum of Rs.7,700/- paid towards air ticket and a sum of Rs.3,500/- paid towards additional charges with a compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- for mental agony. 

8.     The contention of the opposite party is that the present complaint is not maintainable since this Forum is having no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case.  But admittedly, the air tickets were booked at Chennai through email as per Ex.A1.

In (1) SSC 135, Appeal No.1560 /2004

Between

Sonic Surgical

-Versus-

National Insurance Company Limited

Held that

“For a complaint case to be maintained before the Consumer Forum, the branch office impleaded must have some nexus with the cause of action and a mere existence of an office of opposite party without any link with the cause of action cannot extend territorial jurisdiction to the complainants to file the complaint”.

9.     Further the contention of the opposite parties is that rescheduling the ticket requested and issued is subject to availability and the tickets issued are only an itinerary ticket.  But on a careful perusal of Ex.A7, it is very clear that the rescheduled ticket are duly confirmed.  Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the parents of the complainant were not reached the domestic terminal of Delhi Airport; is not acceptable without any proof.   Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the reschedule ticket issued on itinerary basis and there was non availability of ticket.  The parents of the complainant were not able to accommodate and the reschedule amount of Rs.3,000/- was refunded to the complainant on 17.10.2007 by way of electronic transfer through bank directly to the complainant’s account.   But there is no proof.   Further the contention of the opposite parties is that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  The claim of the complainant is ex-orbitant and imaginary.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.7,700/- paid towards air ticket and a sum of Rs.3,500/- paid towards rescheduling the ticket with a compensation of Rs.15,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/- to the  complainant and the points are answered accordingly.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  The opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to  pay a sum of Rs.7,700/- (Rupees seven Thousand and seven hundred only) paid towards Air Ticket and a sum of Rs.3,500/- (Rupees three thousand and five hundred only) paid towards rescheduling the ticket with a compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) being the cost of litigation to the complainant.

The aboveamounts shall be payablewithin six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 06^th day of July 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	23.08.2006	Copy of Electronic  Ticket
Ex.A2	23.08.2006	Copy of Electronic  Ticket
Ex.A3	13.09.2006	Copy of email from the complainant to 1st opposite party
Ex.A4	13.09.2006	Copy of email from the 1st opposite party to complainant
Ex.A5	14.09.2006	Copy of email from the 1st opposite party to complainant
Ex.A6	16.09.2006	Copy of email from the complainant to 1st opposite party
Ex.A7		Copy of Rescheduled E-ticket
Ex.A8	03.10.2006	Copy of email from the complainant to 1st opposite party
Ex.A9	03.10.2006	Copy of email from the 1st opposite party to the complainant
Ex.A10	03.10.2006	Copy of email from the complainant to the 1st opposite party
Ex.A11	18.11.2006	Copy of email from the complainant to 1st opposite party
Ex.A12	05.12.2006	Copy of email from the complainant to 1st opposite party
Ex.A13	19.03.2007	Copy of email from the complainant to 1st opposite party
Ex.A14	20.03.2007	Copy of email from the complainant to 1st opposite party
Ex.A15	20.03.2007	Copy of letter by the complainant to 1st opposite party with postal receipt
Ex.A16	06.10.2007	Copy of email from the complainant to 1st opposite party
Ex.A17	06.10.2007	Copy of email from the 1st opposite party to complainant
Ex.A18	18.02.2008	Copy of legal notice to the opposite parties by the complainant Counsel
Ex.A19	18.02.2008	Copy of returned cover
Ex.A20	05.03.2008	Copy of covering letter by the complainant’s Counsel to 1st opposite party

 

 1^ST OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:  NIL

2^ND OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:  

Ex.B1	01.04.1992	Copy of the certificate of incorporation first and second of the 2nd opposite party
Ex.B2	17.06.1996	Copy of certificate of incorporation of M/s. Jet Lite India Ltd.
Ex.B3	30.12.2004	Copy of certificate of change of name of the 2nd opposite party

3^RD OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:  NIL

Ex.B4

15.05.2007

Copy of Fresh Certificate of incorporation  dated:15.05.2007 issued by the Registrar of Companies Uttar Pradesh and Uttranchal

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT