CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.823/2009
SH. H.K. SANDUREA
112/13, AMRIT PURI-B(GARHI),
EAST OF KAILASH, NEW DELHI-110065
…………. Complainant
Vs.
1. SH. WANGCHUK SHASMSHU,
DIRECTOR, HIMALAYAN HELI SERVICES PVT. LTD.,
104, 7-L.S.C., MADANGIR, NEW DELHI-110062
2. M/S HIMALAYAN HELI SERVICES PVT. LTD.,
104, 7-L.S.C., MADANGIR,
NEW DELHI-110062
THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR
…………..Respondents
AND
Case No.824/2009
MRS. CHANDER SANDUREA
112/13, AMRIT PURI-B(GARHI),
EAST OF KAILASH, NEW DELHI-110065
…………. Complainant
Vs.
1. SHRI WANGCHUK SHASMSHU,
DIRECTOR, HIMALAYAN HELI SERVICES PVT. LTD.,
104, 7-L.S.C., MADANGIR, NEW DELHI-110062
2. M/S HIMALAYAN HELI SERVICES PVT. LTD.,
104, 7-L.S.C., MADANGIR,
NEW DELHI-110062
THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR
…………..Respondents
Date of Order:04.06.2015
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav, President
By this order we shall dispose of the aforesaid complaints as the common question of fact and law is involved. For the sake of reference, facts of case no.823/09 are detailed. In fact the complainants are husband and wife and they, with a view to visit Holy Cave of Shri Amarnathji, got helicopter tickets booked on 09.6.09 through their son Mr. Chanchal Sandurea from OP-2.
Initially the complaint was filed against Sh. Bangchuk Shamshu, Director of M/s Himalayan Heli Services Pvt. Ltd.(hereinafter referred as HHS). He took the plea that the complaint is not maintainable as he being a Director is not liable for affairs of the company and complaint is bad for non joinder of the company. Later on an amendment application was moved by the complainant for impleading of the company stating therein that he is not a legal person and was not aware of the technicality hence moved an application for impleading of the company. That application was duly replied by the company through its Director. OP-1 has filed affidavit as Director of OP-2 as well as signed the reply for OP-2. That application was allowed vide order dated 02.7.2013. That order has got finality.
The case of the complainant is that OP-2 has charged Rs.6,400/- for one ticket to cover distance form Baltal to Holy Cave of Amarnathji and vice versa. On 01.8.09, complainant reported at 6.30 AM at Baltal helipad of OP-2 for reaching at Holy Cave by helicopter.
Complainant was surprised to know from the staff of OP-2 that due to orders of Governor of J& K the destination has been changed w.e.f. 22.7.09 from Baltal to Panchtarni instead of Baltal to Holy Cave of Amarnathji. The left over distance between Panchtarni and Holy Cave of Amarnathji was 6 Km and the same was very dangerous. Complainant being a senior citizen had no option left but to hire a pony and with great difficulty and moreover with low level of oxygen covered the track and reached the Holy Cave of Amarnathji from Panchtarni and paid Rs.800/- as pony charges.
The case of the complainant is that OP-2 had neither informed his son about the relocation of helipad on his email ID which he had given to OP-2 nor they informed the complainant in writing. On 10.8.09 complainant had written to OP-2 to refund Rs.1600/- for him as well for his wife for hiring of pony. On 12.8.09, OP-1, Director of OP-2 replied to his letter mentioning that like other passengers, he had also emailed to him about relocation of helipad. But the same was not correct as complainant was not having any email ID and nor he gave the same to OP-2 rather his son gave his email ID for future correspondence. The letter dated 12.8.09 of OP-2 was duly replied by complainant vide reply dated 27.8.09. While replying to the aforesaid letter on 04.9.09, OP-1 enclosed a copy of email which he alleged to have mailed to different persons which were to travel during the period 22.7.09 to 05.8.09 about the relocation of helipad and OP-1 alleged that he has also emailed to his son Mr. Chanchal Sandurea but the same is fictitious.
It is stated that the copy of email sent by OP-2 to complainant on 25.9.09 was not the same which OP-1 had sent to him alongwith his letter dated 04.9.09 because in his copy email ID against the names of each passenger is not given whereas there are email ID against the names of each passenger in the copy sent to his son. If OP-2 had n reality emailed a copy about the relocation of helipad to his son on 22.7.09, it would have been the same copy from their server which OP-1 sent to him on 04.9.098 and also which OP-1 emailed again to son of complainant on 25.9.09.
It is further stated that on receipt of email copy from OP-2, son of complainant had emailed to six passengers in order to confirm the factual position whether M/s HHS had informed them on 22.7.09 about the relocation of the helipad and all of them have replied to his son through email and denied having received any intimation about the relocation of helipad by M/s HHS.
Complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.2400/- for difference of helicopter fare from Panchtarni to Holy Cave and back and Rs.800/- for pony charges and Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment and Rs.10,000/- for litigation charges.
Identical relief has been claimed by Mrs. Chander Sandurea in complaint No.824/09.
Initially the complaint was filed against the Director of the company hence the reply was also filed by him wherein he took the preliminary objection that the complaint is bad for non joinder of company and he being Director of the company is not personally liable for affairs of the company. Written statements filed shows that it has been filed on the behalf of the company. In the written statements, it is stated that Shri Amarnath Shrine Board(SASB) is responsible for the smooth functioning of Amarnath Yatra. It is not disputed that on 9.6.09 two tickets were booked online by one Sh. Chanchal Sandurea for complainant Sh. H.K. Sandurea and Mrs. Chander Sandurea.
It is not disputed that Sh. Chanchal Sandurea provided his email address to the company for the purpose of correspondence. It is stated that SASB vide their letter dated 10.7.09 informed company that SASB has decided to relocate helipad from Holy Cave to Panchtarni with effect form 16.7.09. OP-2 vide their letter dated 13.7.09 and various meetings held with SASB requested not to relocate helipad at such a short notice as the same would cause inconvenience to the passengers.
It is stated that on 14.7.2009, SASB communicated their decision to relocate the helipad from Holy Cave to Panchtarni w.e.f.22.7.2009 due to the reason that SASB was concerned about the pre-mature melting of the lingum and since distance form Panchtarni to the Holy Cave was short and various modes of commuting like ponies etc. were available the same would not cause any prejudice to the devotees. The decision of the SASB was also given great publicity and the news was reported in various newspapers. Further OP-2 also displayed the fact of relocation of its helipad on its website and also displayed two public notice boards in this regard at its office at Baltal where the passengers report for boarding and also offered 100% cash refund in the case the passenger does not wish to use the services due to relocation of helipad. It is further stated that company had to adhere to the directives of the SASB however it intimated all the passengers at the email addresses. However, no request for refund and/or rescheduling of the date was received from the complainant and he and his wife never raised any protests or grievance regarding the change of helipad.
It is denied that OP has neither informed the son of complainant by email. It is denied that the copy of email sent by OP-2 to complainant on 25.9.09 was not the same which OP-1 had sent to him alongwith his letter dated 04.9.09. It was further denied that passengers were not intimated about the relocation of helipad by M/s HHS.
We have heard Ld. Counsels for parties and carefully perused the record.
It is a fact that from 26.7.09 the SASB has decided to relocate the helipad from Holy Cave to Panchtarni and the reason stated by SASB for such change in its meetings with company official was that SASB was concerned about the pre mature melting of the Lingum. OPs have nothing to do with relocation of helipad. OP have stated that the decision of SASB about the relocation of helipad was given due publicity and the same was reported in various newspapers. OP have placed on record the copy of those newspapers. One of the annexures shows that the change of helipad was notified in the daily newspaper of Jammu and also in the news agency of Kashmir.
It is not obligatory on the part of a person to go through the newspaper. It is admitted fact that the son of the complainant has given his email ID for the purpose of correspondence. Son of the complaint have not received any communication from the OPs regarding the change of the helipad and in the complaint it is stated that OP-2 enclosed a copy of email which he alleged to have sent to son of complainant and also to 25 other persons on 23.9.09. The son of complainant after checking his email record requested OP to email him on his ID once more the copy dated 22.7.09 which they alleged to have emailed to him. On 25.9.09 the copy of email received by his son is not the same which was sent to the complaint alongwith his letter dated 04.9.09 because in the copy sent to the complaint email ID against the name of each passenger is nog given whereas from the email ID against the name of each passenger in the copy is not to his son. If OP had in reality mailed a copy about relocation to his son on 22.7.09 it would have been the same copy from their server which Mr. Bangchuk Shasmshu, employee of OP-2 had sent to him on 04.9.09.
OP denied that on 25.9.2009 the copy of the email sent by Mr. Mayank Singh of Himalayan Heli Services Pvt. Ltd. to the complainant’s son is not the same which was sent by the OP alongwith its letter dated 04.9.2009. It was stated that the first copy that was sent to the complainant on 04.9.2009 was a print out of the original email sent on 02.7.2009 and that is why it had the names of the recipients and did not show any interlinked data attached to the names of the recipients to whom the emails were sent informing of the relocation of the helipad. The second copy sent to the complainant’s son was an attachment in an email, also of the original mail sent on 22.7.2009 which allowed the complainant’s son to access the email IDs linked to the name of the recipients.
There is no doubt that the communication was never sent to the son of the complainant regarding reallocation of helipad had it been so, complainant would not have filed the complaint. We have no reason to disbelieve the complainant that when he reached Baltal only then he for the first time came to know about the relocation of the helipad. In fact the son of the complainant has written to six other passengers to whom the OP has stated to have informed about the relocation of helipad and all of them sent reply on the email of the son of the complainant stating that they have not received any communication from the OP. We are of the opinion that there was deficiency in service on the part of OPs. It was duty of OP-1 to send email to the son of the complainant which they have failed to prove.
The complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.2400/- as difference of helicopter fare from Panchtarni to Holy Cave and back. The complainant is not entitled for refund of pony charges as in fact he has performed that journey. So far as compensation is concerned, it was the decision of SASB to relocate helipad so as to avoid melting of Holy Lingam and OPs have nothing to do with it and in the local newspapers this news appeared but it is certain that no communication was sent to the complainant. The interest of justice will suffice if complainant is awarded compensation of Rs.10000/- each and also awarded litigation of Rs.2000/- each.
Complainant of case No.824/09 is also entitled to the similar reliefs.
Let the order be complied within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(EHTESHAM-UL-HAQ) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
