BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint Case No. :248 of 2018.
Date of Institution : 08.10.2018.
Date of Decision : 15.05.2019.
Gurnam Singh, aged 41 years son of Shri Shaminder Singh resident of village Rampur Theri,PO Bharolianwali, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa Mob.No.94675-51564.
……Complainant.
Versus
1.Onkar Travels Pvt. Ltd.Lalli Niwas, Opp. Hans Raj Stadium, G.T.Road, Jalandhar (Pb.) through its Director/Manager. Phone: 0181-2234573.
2.Japan Airline, Chanderlok Building, 36, Janpath, New Delhi, through its Manager/authorized signatory.
……Opposite Parties.
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
BEFORE: SH.R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH.ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL………… MEMBER
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR…………………MEMBER
Present: Sh.Sanjay Sihag, Adv. for complainant.
Sh.Sandeep Sharma, Adv. for Op No.1.
Op No.2 exparte.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint with the averments that he is holder of legal passport bearing No.S3004669 and has visited Japan abroad on many occasions through Japan Airlines, therefore, the said airline had issued Frequent Traveller ID bearing No.JL-JL407456382. In July, 2018, he got Visa to visit Paris (France) for the period from 15.07.2018 to 29.08.2018, therefore, he approached OP No.1 for the booking of ticket for Paris through Japan Airlines. The tickets bearing flight booking reference No.JL/QE9TMR, Flight JL 74- Japan Airlines from New Delhi to Tokyo on 13th, August, 2018 at 1935 hours, were supplied to him on charging of Rs.1,01,4000/- by Op No.1. The said flight was to reach Parish via Tokyo and Seoul (South Korea). The complainant boarded the flight of Japan Airlines on 14.08.2018 from New Delhi and after reaching Tokyo, he was issued transit visa for next flight to Seoul but the airport authorities at Haneda Airport, Tokyo did not allow the complainant to board the flight as he was not having direct air ticket from Seoul to Paris. Due to this, the complainant had to stay in Japan as he was having 3 days transit visa and further got prepared a separate and direct ticket from Seoul to Paris by spending additional amount of Rs.1,40,000/-. The complainant could not reach Paris in time, therefore, he returned to Delhi by purchasing another ticket by spending a sum of Rs.50,000/-, as the tour of the complainant had been spoiled by the Ops as they had issued faulty and irrelevant air tickets to the complainant. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part.
2. On notice, Op No.1 appeared and filed its reply, whereby it has been submitted that the complainant for the first time approached the Op No.1 for only reservation of flights. The Op no.1 had reserved the flights bearing PNR No.QE9TMR and duly informed the complainant and even did not charge/receive any payment from the complainant for the said flight reservation. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. Summons to Op No.2 were sent through registered post but none had turned up on behalf of Op No.2, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 16.11.2018.
3. Thereafter, the parties have led their respective evidence.
4. We have learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the material available on the case file.
5. The complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint and has also tendered documents such as travel summary Ex.C1, schedule of journey Ex.C2 to Ex.C4, tickets and receipt Ex.C5, ExC6, rules of transit visa Ex.C7, Ex.C8, Visa Ex.C9 and statement of account Ex.C10. On the other hand, the Op No.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh.Manvinder Singh, Ex.RW1, whereby he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the reply and also tendered such as copy of resolution Ex.RW1/A, Electronics Ticket Itinerary/Receipt Ex.RW1/B and list of flights Ex.RW1/C.
6. The complainant has filed this complaint with the averments that he has approached the Ops for booking of ticket for Paris through Japan Airlines. The respondent No.1 had charged Rs.1,01,400/- from the complainant for the said journey. He was supplied with the tickets to Paris issued by the respondent No.2 bearing flight booking reference No.JL/QE9TMR, Flight JL 74-Japan airlines and was scheduled to depart from New Delhi to Tokyo on 13th August, 2018 at 1935 hours. As per schedule, the complainant boarded the said flight of Japan Airlines and reached at Tokyo, from where, he had to board next flight for Seoul but the Japan Airlines refused to allow the complainant 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. He raised protest that if he cannot complete his journey to Paris from Delhi then why the complainant was allowed to travel on this ticket from Delhi to Tokyo. Thereafter, the complainant made a telephonic contact with a trael agent at Delhi and got prepared a separate and direct ticket from Seoul to Paris and thus, incurred an additional amount of Rs.1,40,000/- and then the complainant could be allowed to take flight from Japan to Korea.
7. On the other hand, there is specific plea of the OP No.1 that the Op No.1 did not charge any payment for the said flight nor issued any ticket.
8. 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 Travels, Delhi and no direct payment was made in the account of Op No.1, so it appears from the evidence of the complainant that no transaction has taken place at Sirsa nor the said Riya Travel has been impleaded as a party, having its office at Sirsa. So, this complaint does not appears to be maintainable before this Forum as this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint and as such the present complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:15.05.2019. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member Member
DCDRF, Sirsa DCDRF, Sirsa
