BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.220 of 2019

      Date of Instt. 28.06.2019

      Date of Decision: 02.08.2023

Gurnam Singh, aged 41 years, son of Shri Shaminder Singh, resident of Village Rampur Their, PO Bharolianwali, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa, Mob No.94675-51564.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Onkar Travels Pvt. Ltd., Lally Niwas, Opp. Hans Raj Stadium,          G.T. Road, Jalandhar (Pb.), now 303, 2nd Floor, Chin Mastika    Complex, Central Market, (Near Narinder Cinema), Jalandhar-   144 001 (Pb.) through its Director/Manager. Phone: 0181-      2234573.

2.       Riya Travel & Tours (I) Pvt. Ltd., Gobind Niwas, 36, G.T. Road,     Opp. Bus Stand, Jalandhar (Pb.). Phone: 91181 41 100000, Cell    828 484 7492.

3.       Japan Airline, Chanderlok Building, 36, Janpath, New Delhi, through its Manager/authorised signatory.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:         Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj            (President)

 Smt. Jyotsna                           (Member)

Present:       Sh. Avinash Kumar, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

                   Sh. S. C. Nanda, Adv. Counsel for OP No.1.

                   Sh. Prince Tayal, Adv. Counsel for OP No.2.

                   Sh. Vivek Handa, Adv. Counsel for OP No.3.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant holds a legal and valid passport bearing No.S3004669. On the above passport, the complainant has visited abroad on many occasions through Japan Airlines. The complainant used to book tickets through respondent no.1. The complainant being a frequent traveller of Japan Airlines and thus, the Japan Airlines has issued Frequent Traveller ID bearing No. JL-JL407456382. In July, 2018, the complainant desired to visit Paris (France) and for that the complainant obtained a valid Visa from France Embassy located at New Delhi and the complainant was granted a Visa No.014671437 valid form 15.7.2018 to 29.8.2018. The complainant approached the OP No.1 and made a request for booking a ticket for him for Paris through Japan Airlines. The OP No.1 demanded a sum of Rs.1,01,500/- from complainant for "said journey and desired the complainant to deposit 19 this amount in the account of respondent no.2 and also provided Account number of respondent no.2 i.e. Account No.008205006731 with ICICI Bank, IFSC Code ICIC000082. Accordingly, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.1,01,500/- in the account of Riya Travellers-respondent no.2 on 11.8.2018 complainant was supplied the said ticket to Paris by respondent no.1 issued by respondent no.3 bearing Flight Booking Reference No.JL/QE9TMR, Flight JL 740- Japan Airlines and was scheduled to depart from New Delhi to Tokyo on 13 August, 2018 at 1935 hours. The above flight was to reach at Paris via Tokyo (Japan) and Seoul (South Korea). The complainant had visa for Paris (France) and was not having visa for Japan and Korea. But however, it is the rule of Japan and South Korea Immigration that if any person visits Europe or Australia via these countries, then in Japan, such person is issued 3 days transit visa and in South Korea, such person is issued 30 days transit visa at the Airport. As per above schedule, the complainant boarded the above flight of Japan Airlines form Delhi Airport and on 14.8.2018, the complainant reached at Tokyo. From Tokyo, the complainant had to board next flight for Seoul from other Airport, therefore, at Tokyo Airport, the complainant was issued transit visa for next flight to Seoul. But when the complainant reached at the other airport in Tokyo i.e. Haneda Airport, Tokyo for taking flight to Seoul, but the Japan Airlines refused to allow me to board the plane on the ground that the complainant is not having the direct air ticket from (Seoul to Paris and that the flight of the complainant as per schedule will first go to Seoul, then will return from Seoul to Tokyo and then will lead for Paris and thus, the complainant cannot be allowed to go to Korea on this ticket. The complainant was highly surprised and shocked to hear this from Airport Authorities at Haneda Airport Tokyo and he raised a protest with them that if the complainant could not complete his journey to Paris from Delhi, then why he was issued the ticket at Delhi to Paris and why the complainant was allowed to travel on this ticket from Delhi to Tokyo, but the Airport Authorities at Haneda Airport Tokyo did not listen to the same and declined the complainant to travel to Seoul by saying that, the complainant is not having a direct ticket from Seoul to Paris. Due to the above situation created by the Airport Authorities at Haneda Airport, Tokyo, the complainant found himself trapped as he was having only 3 days transit visa to stay in Japan, so the complainant in order to get out of this trap, immediately made a telephonic contact with a Travel Agent at Delhi and got prepared a separate and direct ticket from Seoul additional amount to of Paris and thus, Rs.1,40,000/- incurred an and then the complainant could be allowed to take a flight from Japan to Korea. The complainant was further told by the Airport Authorities at Haneda Airport, Tokyo that now he cannot use the earlier ticket of Japan Airlines and that the same has now lost its significance. Due to above reasons, lot of precious time of complainant wasted in Tokyo and thus, he could not reach Paris well in time. So, on 17.8.2018, the complainant after reaching Seoul, returned to Delhi by purchasing another Ticket to Delhi and incurred a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Thus, the above tour of the complainant spoiled due to irrelevant ticket issued by the respondents. As stated above, the complainant had booked a ticket from Delhi to Paris through respondent no.1, which was issued by respondent no.3, but the respondent no.3 issued faulty and irrelevant ticket to the complainant due to which the complainant could not reach his destination, but rather, unnecessary harassment, hardship, mental stress, disappointment and dejection. The complainant also suffered huge financial losses and he also could not meet with the person t Paris for which he undertook this long journey. The respondent no.3 should have ensured journey to the complainant. The a hassle free complainant undertaken journey through Japan Airlines but this bitter experience has shattered his faith and belief in the services of respondent no.3. In this manner, the complainant has further experienced mental pain on shattering of his faith and belief in respondents. Since the respondents issued faulty and irrelevant air ticket to the complainant due to which he could not complete his journey, therefore, the complainant is entitled to refund of price of air ticket i.e. Rs.1,01,500/- charged by respondents. Due to such gross negligent and carless act and conduct of the respondents, the complainant had to purchase other tickets worth Rs.1,40,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- as detailed, so the complainant is also entitled to these amounts from the respondents. The complainant is also entitled to interest on above amounts at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of payment till realization of the same. In this manner, the respondent have indulged in unfair trade practice and have committed gross deficiency in service towards the complainant and thereby have put the complainant to suffer unnecessary harassment, hardship, fatigue, coupled with mental tension, pain, agony, stress, disappointment and displeasure and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,01,500/-, Rs.1,40,00/- and Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest thereon @ 12% per annum from the date of payment of the same till realization. Further, OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.21,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was sent to the OPs and accordingly, OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present case is not maintainable qua OP No.1 and should be dismissed on non-joinder/mis-joinder of parties. The complainant had filed a case bearing no.248/2018 titled as ‘Gurnam Singh versus Onkar Travels Pvt. Ltd.’ and the said case dismissed by District Consumer Forum at Sirsa on ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. The District Consumer Forum Sirsa observed/held in the order dated 15.05.2019 that ‘during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant has conceded that the complainant had purchased the tickets from Riya Travels and payment of the tickets were also made in the account of Riya Travles, Delhi and no direct payment was made in the account of OP No.1.’ It is respectfully submitted that the OP No.1 may be deleted from this case. It is further averred that the complainant has filed some additional documents which he has not placed on record before the District Consumer Forum at Sirsa. As per the law, the complainant could not place on record the additional documents without prior leave of this Forum. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant approached the OP No.1 for reservation of the flight, which was got reserved by the OP No.1 in the name of the complainant from OP No.2, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                OP No.2 filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present Complaint is not maintainable in the present form hence deserves dismissal. It is further averred that this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present complaint as such deserves dismissal. The complainant has not come to this Court with clean hands and has suppressed the material and important facts from this Court as such does not deserve any relief from this Court. The present complaint of the complainant is wrong, false and frivolous to the very knowledge of the complainant as such is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is further averred that the complainant cannot be allowed to take the benefits of his own wrongs. It is further averred that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of admissions and laches on the part of the complainant. No cause of action ever arose to the complainant against the answering respondent to file the present complaint as such the present complaint deserves dismissal. Even no cause of action ever arose to the complainant within the territorial Jurisdiction of this Court as such the present complaint deserves dismissal. It is further averred that there is no privity of contract in between the complainant and the answering respondent as such the present complaint is not maintainable against the answering respondent, and is thus liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that the complainant has wrongly and malafidely dragged the answering respondent into the present litigation knowingfully well that the answering respondent is not the necessary party nor any wrong has been done by them, as such filed false and frivolous case against them. This malafide act of the complainant has made the answering respondent to suffer both mentally, physically and economically for which the answering respondent is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.1 Lakh from the complainant. It is further averred that the complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. The answering respondent is not the necessary party to the present lis. The answering respondent is dealing in the wholesale business of Air Travels, Air Ticketing Domestic and International, Tour Packages and is working as Full Fledged Travel Agency and in IATA Approved agency. The respondent no 1 is the customer of the answering respondent and purchases tickets from the answering respondent as per his needs and demands. The answering respondent issues the tickets as per the demand of the respondent no 1. The said Air Tickets are being issued as per the norms, rules and regulations of each Airline. All the norms, rules and regulations of each Airline have to be strictly followed by the person(s) who wish to travel by their Airline. The answering respondent cannot make their own rules and regulations. The refund rules, boarding rules, date of journey change rules etc are totally different as per Airline to Airline. On merits, it is admitted that the said air ticket was from Delhi to Paris via Tokyo (Japan) and Seoul (South Korea) and it is also admitted that the amount of Rs.99,309.58 were received by the OPs and it is also admitted that the bill was raised in the name of OP No.1, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

4.                OP No.3 also filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form. It is further averred that the complainant is having no locus- standi to initiate any complaint against the present OP. It is further averred that the complainant is barred by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint. It is further averred that the complainant had concealed the material facts from this Court and by way of filing the present complaint has tried to mislead this Court. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant has visited abroad on many occasions through Japan Airlines and the complainant used to book tickets through OP No.1, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

5.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.

6.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

7.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by the complainant very minutely.

8.                It is admitted fact that the complainant approached the OP No.1 for reservation of the flight, which was got reserved by the OP No.1 in the name of the complainant from OP No.2. The OP No.2 has admitted that the amount of Rs.99,309.58 was received by the OPs. It is admitted by the OP No.2 that the bill was raised in the name of the OP No.1 and as per the admission of the complainant, the amount was deposited in the account of the OP No.2. It has also been admitted by OP No.3 that the ticket for Paris was issued in the name of the complainant. This fact has also been admitted by the OP No.3 that the flight was to be arrived at Paris via Tokio and Seoul. The complainant has alleged that he was not having visa for Japan and Korea. The complainant has referred the rule of Japan and South Korea immigration that if any person visits Europe or Australia via these countries, then in Japan such person is issued 3 days transit visa and in South Korea, such person is issued 30 days transit visa at Airport. But when the complainant, after receiving the transit visa for next flight to Seoul at Tokio Airport, went for taking the flight to Seoul, the Japan Airlines refused to allow him to board the plane on the ground that the complainant is not having the direct air ticket from Seoul to Paris. The objection raised by the Japan Airlines was that as per schedule, the flight of the complainant will first go to Seoul then it will return from Seoul to Tokia and then they will lead for Paris and thus, the complainant cannot be allowed to Korea on this ticket. Since, the complainant was not having much days visa, then he had to get the ticket from Seoul to Paris and had to incur the additional amount of Rs.1,40,000/- and then he was allowed to take a flight from Japan to Korea. He has alleged that the OP No.3 has issued faulty and irrelevant ticket to the complainant, which had caused lot of harassment to the complainant.

9.                As per the ticket Ex.C-1, the schedule has been mentioned on the ticket itself. The complainant was to board Plane from Delhi to Tokio on 13 August, then from Tokio to Seoul on 14 August, then again from Seoul to Tokio on 17 August, then Tokio to Paris on 19 August. From 22 to 29 August, again the same route was to be followed from Paris to Tokio, then from Tokio to Seoul, then from Seoul to Tokio and thereafter from Tokio to Delhi. The complainant has produced the rule of Korea Transit Visa for Indian Ex.C-6. Perusal of Ex.C-6 shows that this rule provides ‘If one is to transit South Korea on the way to Europe, USA, Canada, Australia or New Zealand, then one can spend upto 30 days ‘in transit’ without requiring a South Korean Visa. As per Ex.C-7, as per Korean Immigration Service the complainant was required to have a valid transit visa in his itinerary flew back to Tokyo. As per the immigration rule of Korean Service, if the journey of the complainant is from Tokio to Seoul to Paris i.e. without going to Tokio again directly to Paris, then Korean Visa is not required, but in the present case as per Ex.C-1, the ticket of complainant was from Seoul to Tokio and from Tokio to Paris not from Seoul to Paris directly. So, as per the rule, the visa was required. The complainant has alleged that he was refused to board the flight on the ground that he is not having direct visa from Seoul to Paris, but the complainant has not produced on record any document to show the ground on which the OP No.3 refused to allow him to board the Plane. There is no written order produced or proved by the complainant. Even the copy of the transit visa has not been produced and proved by the complainant on record to show that he was having transit visa for three days with him. The complainant has not produced on record any such rule of Korean Immigration Service, which may suggest that while travelling in the countries as mentioned in the rule relied upon by the complainant i.e. Europe, USA, Canada, Australia or New Zealand, no direct ticket is required from Seoul to Paris as in the present case. It is proved as per the itinerary in Ex.C-1 that he was not to go from Seoul to Paris directly rather his flight was from Seoul to Tokio, then from Tokio to Paris, but the rule says that there should be direct ticket from Seoul to Paris, which the complainant was not having. The complainant has not produced on record any other rule or guidelines to show that fault was on the part of the OPs. The complainant himself was not having Visa. As per his own submission, he had been visiting the abroad on many occasions through Japan Airlines. So, he must be in the knowledge of the fact that he is required to have visa for going from Seoul to Tokio then Tokio to Paris. So, from all the angles, the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and thus, the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same is dismissed with no order of costs. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

10.              Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated                              Jyotsna                        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

02.08.2023                    Member                                 President