Punjab

Faridkot

CC/20/52

Raj Kumar Rawat - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shivam Tour and Travels - Opp.Party(s)

Jagdish Parshad

08 Dec 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FARIDKOT

 

C.C. No. :                    52 of 2020

Date of Institution:      25.02.2020                                                                                         Date of Decision :         8.12.2022

 

Raj Kumar Rawat aged about 55 years, son of Mali Singh, resident of Green Avenue, Opposite Gandhi College, Faridkot Road, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura, District  Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

1. Shivam Tour and travels (Harvinder Gupta Titu) Opposite Civil Hospital, Faridkot Road, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot.
2. Jet Airways, (India) Limited, 3/E, Hansalaya 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi & Jet Airwayas, Office at Jet Air House, 13 Community Centre, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi, through its M.D.

                                            ....Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(Now under Section 35 of the C.P. Act)

 

Quorum:       Sh Vishav Kantt Garg, Member,

 Smt. Param Pal Kaur, Member.

C.C. No. - 52 of 2020

Present:      Sh Jagdish Parshad, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                  Sh Anil Chawla, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

                   OP-2 Exparte,

ORDER

(Vishav Kantt Garg, Member)

                                       Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to OPs to refund Rs.38,300/-, Rs.10,000/-for taxi charges alongwith interest and for further directing OPs to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and  harassment suffered besides litigation expenses.

2                                                       Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant got booked  one ticket for her daughter for going to Canada in April 2019 through OP-1 and paid Rs.38,300/-in cash. Flight was to start on 12.04.2019 from Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi at 1.15 a.m. it is submitted that complainant alongwith his family members reached at Airport before scheduled time on 11.04.2019 at 10.00 p.m., but they were shocked to hear that OP-2 cancelled the flight at once without any prior intimation. Complainant alongwith other passengers raised protest, but all in vain. Then, complainant again booked ticket and sent his daughter to Canada on 23.04.2019

C.C. No. - 52 of 2020

and again paid Rs.71,000/-. Complainant again hired taxi and paid Rs.10,000/-as fare charges. After that complainant made several requests to Ops to refund the amount of Rs.38,300/-paid by him, but they paid no heed to his requests and did not refund his amount, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice. Repeated requests made by complainant to the Ops bore no fruit, which also amount to trade mal practice on the part of OPs. Complainant has suffered a lot of physical pain, mental agony and harassment alongwith his family. Ld counsel for complainant has made request for accepting  the present complaint and to provide relief sought. He has also prayed for compensation and litigation expenses. Hence, the  instant complaint.

3                                               The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 02.03.2020, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the OPs.

 4                                                 OP-1 filed written statement taking preliminary objections that complaint filed by him is not maintainable as there is no deficiency in service on their part. It is averred that answering OP got booked ticket through Travel Boutique online company, who is authorized agent for

C.C. No. - 52 of 2020

selling tickets of OP-2 and of almost all the Air Lines in Punjab region and when it received information regarding cancellation of flight, Op-1 requested OP-2 as well as Travel Boutique Online Company to refund the cost of ticket paid by complainant, but OP-2 did not care to reply, but Travel Boutique Online Company  replied through their Jallandhar office that as and when amount is refunded by OP-2, the same would be returned to complainant. It is further averred that complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party i.e Travel Boutique Online Company which is very much necessary to be arrayed  and therefore, complaint being not maintainable, is liable to be dismissed. However, on merits, ld counsel for Ops have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and reiterated the same pleadings as taken by them in preliminary objections.

5                                                Notice containing copy of complaint alongwith relevant documents was served to OP-2 through registered post as well as through publication, but OP-2 did not bother to appear in this Commission on date fixed either in person or through counsel, therefore, after long waiting till 4.00 O’clock when no body appeared on behalf of OP-2, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 26.10.2021

C.C. No. - 52 of 2020

  6                                                To prove his case, Ld counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.C-1, documents Ex C-2 to C-6 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                                                 To controvert the allegations of complainant, Ld Counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Harvinder Kumar Gupta alias Titu  Ex OP-1 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of OP-1.

8                                                  We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well as OP-1 and have also carefully perused and gone through the pleadings and evidence produced on record by complainant and OP-1 to prove their respective case.

9                                                   The grievance of the complainant is that he got booked airline flight ticket of OP-2 Airline  through OP-1 for his daughter for going to Canada and paid Rs.38,300/-in cash. Flight was scheduled for 12.04.2019 at 1.15 a.m. and complainant alongwith his family members reached at Airport advance on 11.04.2019 at 10.00 p.m by hiring a taxi. Complainant has alleged that OP-2 cancelled the flight at once without any prior intimation.

C.C. No. - 52 of 2020

Then, complainant again booked ticket and sent his daughter to Canada on 23.04.2019 and again paid Rs.71,000/-. Complainant had to hire taxi again and paid Rs.10,000/-as fare charges. Now, grievance of the complainant is that despite repeated requests to Ops to refund the amount of Rs.38,300/-paid by him, OPs did not bother to redress the issue, which amounts to deficiency in service. All this caused huge harassment and mental agony to him. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint.

 10                                         On the other hand OP-1 asserted that he got booked ticket for daughter of complainant for going to Canada through Travel Boutique online company, who is authorized agent for selling tickets of OP-2 and of almost all the Air Lines in Punjab region and when it received information regarding cancellation of flight, Op-1 requested OP-2 as well as Travel Boutique Online Company to refund the cost of ticket paid by complainant and on request of OP-1, Travel Boutique Online Company  replied that as and when amount is refunded by OP-2, the same would be returned to complainant. OP-1 prayed for dismissal of complaint against it as there is no deficiency in service on its part.

C.C. No. - 52 of 2020

11                                   To prove this case, complainant has relied upon document Ex C-2, which is computer generated copy of  travel summary for going from Delhi to Hong Kong and from Hong Kong to Vancouver. It is observed that complainant has not placed on record copy of ticket that shows the price for covering the journey from Delhi to Vancouver. Said flight was cancelled and daughter of complainant boarded flight for Vancouver on 23.04.2019 instead of scheduled flight for 11.04.2019. meaning thereby, ticket in dispute was not used for making journey on 11.04.2019 and when said ticket for which refund is sought, was not used, then that was required to be produced in this Commission in original, but neither original nor any copy of said ticket is furnished before this Commission. Moreover, there is no documentary evidence or receipt that can prove the fact that complainant paid Rs.38,300/-to OPs. Neither any e-ticket nor any photocopy thereof, is brought on record by complainant to prove his pleadings. If the flight scheduled for going to Vancouver via Hong Kong from Delhi was cancelled, there might have been some notification or notice regarding cancellation on their notice board, but no such evidence proving the cancellation of said flight stands placed on record by complainant party. In case of cancellation, there might have been some

C.C. No. - 52 of 2020

announcement but any recording for the purpose of evidence has also not been brought on record by complainant.

12                                             From the above discussion and keeping in view the all the documents placed on record by respective parties, it is made out that complainant has failed to prove his case. Accordingly, complaint in hand is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. However, in peculiar circumstances of the case, there are not orders as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced in Commission on

Dated: 08.12.2022

                                        (Vishav Kant Garg)             (Param Pal Kaur)                

                                      Member                                Member