STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                        UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

M/s Thakural Travels & Immigration Consultants, SCO 66-67, 2nd Floor, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its Prop. Sh. Ravinder Partap Singh Thakural.

….…Appellant/Opposite Party No.1

V E R S U S

1.     Jagdish Chander Kapoor son of Sh. K.D. Kapoor, resident of H.No. 3598, Sector 37-D, Chandigarh.

….Respondent/Complainant.

2      Ravinder Partap Singh Thakural, Proprietor M/s Thakural Travels & Immigration Consultants, SCO 66-67, 2nd Floor, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

3      Ravinder Partap Singh Thakural, Proprietor M/s Thakural Travels & Immigration Consultants, resident of H.No. 3504, Sector 37-D, Chandigarh.

(Service of respondents No.2 and 3 dispensed vide order dated 10.07.2012)

.…..Respondents/Opposite Parties No.2 and 3

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

Argued by:   Sh.Barjesh Mittal, Advocate for the appellant.

     Sh.J.C.Kapoor, Advocate for respondent No.1

                                                -.-

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

                This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.04.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it allowed the complaint filed by the complainant and directed Opposite Party No.1(now appellant) as under:-

“…..The Opposite Party No.1 is directed to refund Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of this complaint, within 30 days of the receipt of this order, along with Rs.7,000/- as litigation expenses. Thereafter the amount of Rs.50,000-/ shall attract interest @18% from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is actually paid”. 

2.                    In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant had booked airlines ticket from Delhi to Minneapolis USA and back through the Opposite Parties for KLM Royal Dutch Airlines on 25.2.09 vide invoice no. 352 and paid Rs.50,000/- vide Annexure C-1. It was stated that the complainant had planned to commence his journey from June 5, 2009 from Delhi and the return journey was planned for 29 July 2009 from Minneapolis USA .  The complainant due to change in his plans, preferred not to undertake the journey and intimated Opposite Party No.1 through his letter dated 21.05.2009 (Annexure C-3) and requested for cancellation of the said ticket. He also intimated the Opposite Parties regarding non-commencement of journey on their telephone numbers 0172-4669997, 4669998 and 98148-38398.  It was further stated that the complainant requested the Opposite Parties to make the necessary refund of the ticket by serving a legal notice dated 21.6.2010 (Annexure C-4) but to no effect. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service.  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.

3.                    In its written reply, Opposite Party No.1 stated that it  was merely a booking agent of KLM Royal Dutch Airlines. It was further stated that the complainant had actually availed of the service of KLM Royal Dutch Airlines for his journey and it was the said Airlines, which had refunded the amount, payable to the complainant, after cancellation of his ticket. It was denied that the legal notice dated 21.06.2010 was served by the complainant.  It was further stated that the amount of Rs.34,500/- after deducting the cancellation charges, as applicable, was paid to the complainant vide Cheque No. 033891 dated 6.7.2009, in the name of his wife namely Shukla, at his own request and he with malafide intention concealed the receipt of the same. It was further stated that the Opposite Party was neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.                    Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, were duly served but nobody appeared on their behalf and hence, they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 13.07.2011 by the District Forum.

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

6.                    After hearing the complainant, in person, 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.                    We have heard the Counsel for the parties and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

9.                    The Counsel for appellant/Opposite Party No.1 submitted that the complaint was not maintainable on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. He further submitted that   KLM Royal Dutch Airlines refunded a sum of Rs.40,000/- against the ticket of the respondent cancelled on 25.06.2009 after deducting the cancellation charges/penalty leviable on account of such cancellation. He further submitted that after deducting a sum of Rs.5500/- pending payment towards the respondent as penalty/date change charges, for his wife’s return journey, a sum of Rs.34,500/- was duly refunded and the same was credited to the joint saving bank account of Smt.Shukla Kumari (wife) and her husband as per oral request of the complainant and, as such, there was no deficiency in service on its part and the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside. 

10.                 Respondent No.1/complainant submitted that there was no occasion for KLM Royal Dutch Airlines to deduct a sum of Rs.10,000/- as cancellation charges from the price of the ticket because he informed the appellant regarding the cancellation of the ticket, much before the date of his journey and, as such, he was entitled to refund of Rs.50,000/- and this fact has been fairly appreciated by the District Forum. He further submitted that firstly the appellant wrongly deducted a sum of Rs.5500/- out of Rs.40000/- received by KLM Royal Dutch Airlines  because the same was to be paid by the complainant’s wife only and not by him. Secondly, the appellant was at fault by crediting the amount of Rs.35,500/- into the account of the complainant’s wife-Smt.Shukla Kumari despite the fact that there was no specific request was ever made by him and, as such, it was liable to refund the said amount and the District Forum rightly passed the order and the same, being illegal, is liable to be upheld.

11.                 The Counsel for appellant/Opposite Party No.1 submitted that the District Forum ignored the fact that the complaint was not maintainable, on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party i.e. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines to the complaint. This submission of the appellant is not tenable because the complainant availed of the services of the appellant for the purchase of tickets, in question, and had a grievance against it only. There was, thus, privity of contract between the complainant and Opposite Party No.1. Moreover, the complainant did not allege any deficiency in service  against KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and, thus, the complaint was not bad for non-joinder of necessary party.

12.                 Admittedly, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines after deducting a sum of Rs.10000/- towards cancellation charges of the ticket (as applicable) ordered the refund of Rs.40000/- to the appellant. Thus, it was the duty of the appellant to refund the same to the complainant instead of crediting the same to the account of the complainant’s wife  because there is no tangible evidence, on record, to show that the complainant ever made a request to issue the cheque in the name of his wife and credit the amount in their account. Further,  the appellant, committed a mistake by deducting a sum of Rs.5500/- out of Rs.40,000/- because this amount, if at all, was to be paid by the complainant’s wife towards the statutory charges for penalty/date change charges and it should have charged the same from her instead of making any deduction from the refund amount of the complainant.   The appellant is, thus,  liable to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- ordered to be refunded by KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, on account of cancellation of the ticket, to the complainant, instead of Rs.50,000/-, as directed by the District Forum.  

13.                 Moreover, the penal interest granted by the District Forum @ 18% p.a for non-compliance of the order is on the higher side.  In our considered opinion, it shall be reasonable and fair if the penal interest is reduced to 12% p.a. from 18% p.a. Thus, the complainant is held entitled to penal interest @ 12% p.a. The order of the District Forum, is thus, required to be modified, as indicated hereinbefore.

14.                 For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is partly accepted, with no order as to costs, and the order of the District Forum is modified as under:

i)                    Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- instead of Rs.50000/- to respondent No.1/complainant as directed by the District Forum.

ii)                   Penal interest @ 18% p.a. granted by the District Forum, on non-compliance of its order is reduced, and instead appellant/Opposite Party No.1, is ordered to pay penal interest @ 12% p.a.

iii)      The other reliefs granted and directions given by the District Forum, shall remain intact.

15.                 Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

16.                 The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.                                                                                      Sd/-

30.11.2012                             [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER[RETD.]

                                 PRESIDENT

cmg

                                                                                                sd/-                                               [NEENA SANDHU]

                                                                                                MEMBER