STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Go Airlines (through its Manager), Airport Office, Civil Airport, Airport Authority of India, Zirakpur Road, Near Behlana, Chandigarh.

……Appellant/Opposite Party No.1.

V e r s u s

1. Ramneet Moudgil, R/o House No.440, Sector 15-A, Chandigarh.

Respondent/Complainant.

2. M/s. Airpak International (Travel Agent), Sector 17, Chandigarh.

              ....Respondent/Opposite Party No.2.

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:  

Argued by:Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh.Mohan Singh Ghuman, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Respondent No.2 already exparte.

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

            This appeal is directed against the order dated 31.10.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it allowed the complaint, filed by the complainant and directed the Opposite Parties as under:-

“13.    In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, jointly and severally, and the same is allowed, qua it. The Opposite Parties are is directed to:-

[a]   To refund the amount of air tickets i.e. Rs.17,942/- to the Complainant;  

[b]  To pay Rs.10,000/-on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and harassment to the Complainant;

 [c] 

14.      The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @18% p.a. on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] of Para 13 above, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.7,000/-, from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid.”

2.        The facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased an air ticket of Go-Airlines (Opposite Party No.1), through Opposite Party No.2, to travel from Chandigarh to Goa and back, and paid a sum of Rs.17,942/- vide service tax invoice Annexure C-1. It was stated that the air journey from Chandigarh, was to commence on 29.12.2012, and the return journey ex-Goa was scheduled to be undertaken, by the complainant, on 02.01.2013.  Unfortunately, the father-in-law of the complainant, suddenly fell ill, and had to be got admitted in Fortis Hospital, Mohali, on 22.12.2012, wherein, he expired on 18.01.2013.  The complainant informed Opposite Party No.2, about the sudden illness of her father-in-law, which, in turn, communicated the same, to Opposite Party No.1, with a request to delete his (complainant) name, from Annexure C-1, and refund the amount of ticket. It was stated that Opposite Party No.1, vide e-mail Annexure C-4, dated 26.02.2013, sought sometime to revert shortly. However, the complainant did not receive any communication, from Opposite Party No.1, nor the refund was made to him. As such, the complainant sent an e-mail on 13.03.2013, to Opposite Party No.1, with a request to refund the amount of ticket, after cancelling the same, but it (email) was not replied.  It was further stated that the complainant informed the Opposite Parties, well in advance, for the cancellation of air ticket, due to the circumstances, beyond her control, but to no avail.  It was further stated that the flight, in which the complainant was to travel, went fully booked i.e. without any vacant seat, and, as such, the Go-Airlines, did not suffer any financial loss. It was further stated that by not refunding the amount of ticket, despite making request, for the same, well in time, the Opposite Parties were not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties, to refund the amount of air ticket, to the tune of Rs.17,942/-; pay compensation, to the tune of Rs.2 lacs, for mental agony and physical harassment; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.

3.            Opposite Party No.1, in its written version, stated that it had received an e-mail  dated 27.12.2012, Annexure R-1, through one Mangal, with a request that two passengers wanted to postpone their journey, due to medical reason of their father, followed by reminder  dated 28.12.2012, Annexure R-2.  It was further stated that, as the seats were not available, modification in the travelling dates, was not possible.  It was further stated that Opposite Party No.2, was informed, well in time, about the non-availability of seats, on the fresh dates. It was further stated that the flight manifest showed that only three passengers, including the complainant, were reflected as ‘no show’ meaning thereby, that the flight was not fully booked, and there were vacant seats. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.1, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.            Opposite Party No.2, in its written version, stated that the complainant approached it, to buy 18 tickets, from Chandigarh to Goa and back. It was further stated  that Opposite Party No.2, had provided her with a very special group rate, at a very lower price, to which she (complainant) agreed, whereupon, on 08.12.2012, all the tickets were issued, on receipt of full payment. It was further stated that, on 24.12.2012, an email was received from the complainant, with a request to cancel her ticket, for travelling on 29.12.2012, but as per the Policy of Go-Airlines, in the case of booking of group fare tickets, cancellation of the same (ticket), done within 7 days, prior to departure, would attract 100% cancellation charges. It was further stated that this was not the refund policy of Go Airlines only but it was the policy of each and every Airlines for group air tickets. It was further stated that the complainant directly approached Opposite Party No.1, for the refund of amount of her ticket, and till date Opposite Party No.2, had not received any amount from Opposite Party No.1, as a result whereof,  the same could not be refunded to her. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.2, had no objection, in case, the Go-Airlines made the refund of the amount, in dispute, in favour of the complainant. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.2, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

5.            The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6.            After hearing the Counsel for the complainant, and Counsel for Opposite Party No.1, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, allowed the complaint, as stated above. 

7.            Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1.

8.            Despite service, none put in appearance, on behalf of respondent no.2, as a result whereof, it was proceeded against exparte vide the order dated 23.01.2014..

9.            We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, respondent No.1, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 

10.         The Counsel for appellant/Opposite Party No.1, submitted that it did not receive any request, from Opposite Party No.2, regarding cancellation of ticket of respondent No.1/complainant. He further submitted that only a request vide email was received that two passengers, wanted to postpone their journey, but due to non-availability of the seats, in flight, on fresh dates, inability was shown. He further submitted that the flight was not fully booked, and there were vacant seats therein, on account of no show of the complainant, and two other passengers, and, as such, financial loss was caused to the said Airlines. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, in allowing the complaint, being illegal and perverse is liable to be set aside.  

11.         The Counsel for respondent No.1/complainant, submitted that the complainant purchased air ticket of Go Airlines (Opposite Party No.1), through Opposite Party No.2, to travel from Chandigarh to Goa and back, on payment of Rs.17,942/- vide service tax invoice Annexure C-1.  He further submitted that the air journey from Chandigarh, was to commence on 29.12.2012. He further submitted that the return journey ex-Goa was scheduled to be undertaken by the complainant, on 02.01.2013.  He further submitted that, due to the sudden illness of the father-in-law of complainant, she requested Opposite Party No.2, for cancellation of her ticket, through email, which forwarded the same, to Opposite Party No.1, for necessary action, but even then, no refund of the ticket amount, was made to her. He further submitted that the flight, in which the complainant was to travel, went fully booked, and there was no vacant seat, on account of her request for cancellation of the ticket. He further submitted that since the complainant informed the Opposite Parties, well within time, for the cancellation of her air ticket, due to the circumstances, beyond her control, it was their (Opposite Parties) duty, to refund the amount to her, but they failed to do so. He further submitted that the District Forum was right, in coming to the conclusion that there was deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.

12.         After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellant, respondent No.1, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be accepted, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. Admittedly 18 passengers, including the complainant, booked air tickets, in question, through Opposite Party No.2, an Agent of Opposite Party No.1. Since the tickets were purchased by a group, a special group rate was provided at a very lower price by Opposite Party No.2, to which the complainant and other passengers agreed. These were not ordinary tickets, which were purchased by the complainant and other according to the Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, was never forwarded to Opposite Party No.1. On  the  other hand, Annexure R-1 is the email dated 27.12.2012, which was received from Opposite Party No.2, by Opposite Party No.1, to the effect, that two passengers wanted to postpone their journey, due to the medical condition of their father, and advice was sought, if the Airlines could make changes. Annexure R-2 is the other request, which was sent to Opposite Party No.1, by Opposite Party No.2, regarding postponement of the programme, by two passengers, for travelling on 03.01.2013 and return by 27.01.2013. Thus, no reason was furnished to Opposite Party No.1, on 24.12.2012, for the cancellation of ticket, confirmed for 29.12.2012, in respect of the travel schedule of the complainant. On the other hand, a request was sent to Opposite Party No.1, only for postponement of the journey, and not for cancellation of the tickets. Under these circumstances, the submission of the Counsel for respondent No.1/complainant, to the effect, that request was sent to the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, through Opposite Party No.2, for cancellation of the journey, for complainant, does not appear to be correct.

13.         The next question, that requires determination, is, as to whether, the complainant was entitled to the refund of fare, if so, under what circumstances, and to what extent. Opposite Party No.2, from which the tickets were purchased, in clear-cut terms, stated in the reply, supported by the affidavit of the Proprietor thereof, that group tickets, numbering 18, were purchased by the complainant, and other members of the group, for the journey, in question. It was further stated, in the reply, by Opposite Party No.2, which was duly supported by the affidavit, that on those dates, online web fare of Go-Airlines was very high i.e. @Rs.27,000/- per ticket approximately, whereas, it (Opposite Party No.2), had provided the group tickets, at a very special rates i.e. at a very low price, to which the members of the group agreed. It is evident, from the affidavit, filed by the Proprietor of Opposite Party No.2, that at least seven days notice, prior to the date of commencement of journey was required to be given, by the passengers, for cancellation, with a view to qualify for refund, as per the Policy of Opposite Party No.1, and if it is not done, then cancellation charges would be 100%. In the instant case, the request vide Annexure C-3 was made by the complainant, to Opposite Party No.2, on 24.12.2012, whereas, the journey was to be undertaken on 29.12.2012. It means that request for cancellation of the ticket, was made five days prior to the undertaking of journey, and not seven days prior to the same. In these circumstances, as per the Policy of Go-Airlines, the cancellation charges were 100%, and the complainant was not entitled to any refund from Opposite Party No.1. No document, in rebuttal, to the version, set up by Opposite Party No.2, in its written version, supported by the affidavit, aforesaid, was produced by the complainant. Thus, the District Forum, erred in holding that there was deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.1, in not refunding the amount of fare, to the complainant.

14.         Not only this, it is evident, from Annexure R-4, that only three passengers, including the complainant were reflected, as ‘no show’, against the Column of “BRD”. Annexure R-4, the document of Opposite Party No.1, was not rebutted by the complainant, by producing any cogent and convincing evidence, to the contrary. Under these circumstances, Annexure R-4, was an authentic document, which the District Forum failed to appreciate. Therefore, the conclusion, which can be drawn from this document (Annexure R-4) is that three seats, including that of the complainant, in the flight, in which they were to travel, remained vacant. Since the booked seats of the complainant, and two other passengers remained vacant, and the same had not been utilized, by other passengers, the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, could not be made liable to refund the fare. Had, on the other hand, the flight been fully booked, even after the complainant, and two other passengers did not travel, therein, the matter would have been different. The submission of the Counsel for the respondent No.1/complainant, to the effect that flight was fully booked, therefore, being contrary to the document, Annexure R-4, being devoid of merit, is rejected.

15.         No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant, and respondent No.1.

16.       

17.      

18.       

19.       

Pronounced.

3^rd

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

       Ad

STATE COMMISSION

(First Appeal No.540 of 2013)

Argued by:Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the

             Sh.Mohan Singh Ghuman, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Respondent No.2 already exparte.

Dated the 3^rd

ORDER

             Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 has been accepted, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum has been set aside qua appellant/Opposite Party No.1.

Ad