Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/18/723

Ritu Mahna - Complainant(s)

Versus

Nanda Holidays - Opp.Party(s)

Amarjit Singh Advocate

25 Feb 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:723 dated 06.12.2018.                                                         Date of decision: 25.02.2022.

 

Ritu Mahna, aged about 45 years wife of Shri Vinay Kumar Mahna, resident of House No.51, Basant City, Opposite Le Palm Flats, Ludhiana.                                                                                                              ..…Complainant 

•  

1. Nanda Holidays, 15, Badhour House, Ludhiana through its Proprietor/Partner/Authorized Signatory.
2. Air India Ltd., having its registered office at Airlines House, 113, Rakab Ganj Gurudwara Road, New Delhi-110001, through its Director/Managing Director.
3. Air India Ltd., 3750, Dugri Road, Opposite King Spades Palace, Sant Feteh Singh Nagar, Model Town, Ludhiana, through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.                                                                                                                               …..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 12 & 14 of the Consumer Protection    Act, 1986.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         None.

For OP1                         :         None.

For OP2 and OP3          :         Sh. Baljit Sharma, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the complainant is that she along with her daughter intended to visit Chennai in connection with admission of her daughter Shreya Mahna in some engineering college. For the said purpose, OP1 booked a ticket of Air India i.e. OP2 and OP3 from Ludhiana to Delhi on 03.05.2018 and charged Rs.4706/-. OP1 further booked air ticket of Vistara Airlines from New Delhi to Chennai and back on 03.05.2018 and charged Rs.30,624/- from the complainant. As per the booking, the complainant and her daughter had to first go to Delhi through flight No.AI-9838 of OP2 and OP3 which was to depart at 16.20 hours from Ludhiana on 14.05.2018 and reached Delhi at 17.25 Hours. The next flight from New Delhi to Chennai bearing No.UK-835 of Vistara Airlines was to depart on14.05.2018 itself at 19.50 Hours and reach Chennai at 22.40 Hours on the same day. The complainant and her daughter were to return from Chennai to Delhi vide flight No.UK-834 of Vistara Airlines on 15.05.2018 at 17.25 Hours and to reach at New Delhi on the same date at 20.10 Hours. The complainant further got booked tickets of train from Delhi to Chandigarh for 16.05.2018 on 03.05.2018 itself. The train was to depart from New Delhi on 16.05.2018 at 07.40 AM and reach Chandigarh at 11.05 AM for which a sum of Rs.1601.63 was paid. It is pertinent to mention here that as per the booking plan, the complainant along with her daughter reached Ludhiana Airport on 14.05.2018 and the employees of OP2 and OP3 issued boarding passes and allotted seat numbers. However, the flight from Ludhiana to Delhi was delayed and it reached Delhi at 20.11 hours on 14.05.2018. As the flight was got delayed, the complainant’s daughter had to cancel her programme to go to Chennai though it was very important for her to visit Chennai. The complainant could not board the Vistara Airlines flight from Delhi to Chennai which was supposed to depart from New Delhi at 07.50 Hours. After reaching Delhi at 20.11 hours, the employees of OP2 and OP3 did not entertain the complainant properly and did not provide any flight from New Delhi to Chennai nor rendered any help even though the negligence and mistake was on the part of OP2 and OP3. Under the compelling circumstances, the complainant had to purchase new tickets from New Delhi to Chennai from OP2 and OP3 who charged a sum of Rs.24,500/-  and booked flight for the next day i.e. 15.05.2018 which was supposed to depart at 06.50 AM. The complainant had to stay and spend the night at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Deli of her own. OP2 and OP3 issued delay certificate dated 14.05.2018 to the complainant. In this manner, the complainant missed the flight of Vistara Airlines due to the fault on the part of OP2 and OP3. This caused lots of inconvenience and harassment to the complainant and amounts to deficiency of service on the part of OP2 and OP3. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs.32,225.63 on account of loss incurred by the complainant due to cancellation of tickets and to pay Rs.30,200/- which was spent by the complainant for new tickets along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the written statement on behalf of the OP1, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable as OP1 was neither negligent in rendering services nor any deficiency of service can be attributed to it. According to OP1, the tickets were booked as per the demand and request of the complainant. The rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                In a separate written statement filed on behalf of OP2 and OP3, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complainant has suppressed the material facts. According to OP2 and OP3, the time of departure of the air craft was 16.20 hours which was later on revised to 18.15 hours. The department was revised due to technical snag detected at the last moment. Even though the OPs strove to provide desired level of service to the passengers which includes timely departure and arrival at the destination. Thus, there has been no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of OP2 and OP3. The OPs have further pleaded that the delay in the flight occurred due to snag detected in the air craft, otherwise there was no negligence on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

4.                The complainant has placed on record her affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C15.

5.                On the other hand, OP2 and OP3 tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Aurindam Chattopadhyay, Airport Manager of and closed evidence.

6.                In this case, none has been appearing on behalf of the complainant since 21.10.2021 and on behalf of OP1 since 11.02.2022. We have heard the learned counsel for OP2 and OP3 and have gone through the record and proceed to decide the complaint on merits.

7.                The case of the complainant is that as per the booking made by the complainant through OP1, flight from Ludhiana to Delhi was to depart at 04.20 PM and reach New Delhi at 05.25 PM on 14.05.2018. After reaching Delhi, the complainant was to board a flight for Chennai at 07.50 PM and the complainant along with her daughter had to come back from Chennai on 15.05.2018 at a flight of Vistara Airlines which was to depart from Chennai at 05.25 PM and reach New Delhi at 08.10 PM on 16.05.2018. However, on14.05.2018, the flight of OP2 and OP3 was delayed. It took off late from Ludhiana and reached Delhi at 08.11 PM whereas the flight booked by the complainant for Chennai was to depart at 07.50 PM with the result that the complainant and her daughter missed the flight for Chennai and had to cancel Vistara Airlines tickets  and buy fresh tickets by spending Rs.24,500/- for 15.05.2018.

8.                It is evident from Ex. C1 that the flight from Ludhiana to Delhi on 14.05.2018 was to leave Ludhiana on 04.20 PM and arrive at New Delhi at 05.25 PM. It is further evident from Ex. C2 that the Vistara Airlines flight from Delhi to Chennai was to leave Delhi at 07.50 PM and arrive at Chennai at 10.40 PM on 14.05.2018. It has been candidly admitted by OP2 and OP3 in the written statement that the flight from Ludhiana was delayed and its departure was revised from 04.20 PM to 06.15 PM which means that it must have arrived at New Delhi at 07.20 PM. As per Ex. C5, the time of flight of Vistara Airlines on 14.05.2018 was 07.20 PM. In this manner, the complainant missed the flight due to rescheduling and late arrival of flight of OP2 and OP3 from Ludhiana to New Delhi. OP2 and OP3 have further issued delay certificate ex. C8 acknowledging the delay in the departure of flight from Ludhiana. It is, therefore, evident from the record that due to delay rescheduling of the flight of OP2 and OP3 from Ludhiana on 14.05.2018, the complainant and her daughter missed the connecting flight to Chennai.

9.       The complainant had further claimed that  she had paid a sum of Rs.30,624/-  for the return tickets of Vistara Airlines for departure on 14.05.2018 at 07.50 PM from New Delhi and return flight from Chennai to Delhi on 15.05.2018 with departure time from Chennai at 05.25 PM. As the flight to Chennai was missed, the complainant’s daughter cancelled the trip to Chennai and the complainant alone went to Chennai. The complainant had to buy fresh tickets from Delhi to Chennai and back from OP2 and OP3 for a sum of Rs.24,500/-. However, the complainant has not disclosed anything as to whether any refund was issued by Vistara Airlines in respect of the tickets booked from Delhi to Chennai and back. The complainant has further not placed on record the invoice of the tickets which were booked from OP2 and OP3 for air journey from Delhi to Chennai and back. In any case, it is not disputed by OP2 and OP3 in the written statement that the complainant had to spend Rs.24,500/- on fresh booking of tickets from OP2 and OP3 due to delayed flight from Ludhiana.

10.              It has been argued by the counsel for OP2 and OP3 that the delay in flight from Ludhiana to New Delhi on1 4.05.2018 was not intentional but was owing to some technical snag in the air craft. However, the plea raised by OP2 and OP3 cannot be said to be tenable. An airline is supposed to adhere to the time schedule and it has to keep the air craft in perfect order so that no inconvenience is caused to the passengers. Therefore, even if it is accepted that the snag in the aircraft was beyond control of OP2 and OP3, it is definitely a deficiency of service on the part of the OP2 and OP3 which caused not only inconvenience to the complainant but also loss in monetary terms as she has to reschedule her entire visit and also to incur extra expenses of Rs.24,500/-. In these circumstances, in our considered view, it would be just and proper if OP2 and OP3 are made to pay a sum of Rs.24,500/- to the complainant along with composite costs and compensation of Rs.7,000/-.

11.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with direction to OP2 and OP3 shall pay a sum of Rs.24,500/- to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The OP2 and OP3 are further made to pay a composite costs and compensation of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) to the complainant.  Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The complaint as against OP1 is dismissed. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

15.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:25.02.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Ritu Mahna Vs Nanda Holidays                                     CC/18/723

Present:       None for the complainant. 

                   None for OP1.

                   Sh. Sh. Baljit Sharma, Advocate for OP2 and OP3.

 

                   None turned up for complainant as well as OP1 today also.

                   Learned counsel or OP2 and OP3 closed evidence after tendering affidavit Ex. RA. None has been appearing on behalf of the complainant since 21.10.2021 and on behalf of OP1 since 11.02.2022.

                   Arguments heard on behalf of OP2 and OP3 heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is allowed with direction to OP2 and OP3 shall pay a sum of Rs.24,500/- to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The OP2 and OP3 are further made to pay a composite costs and compensation of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) to the complainant.  Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The complaint as against OP1 is dismissed. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:25.02.2022.

Gobind Ram.