Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/20/14

YASHPAL VERMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SINGAPORE AIRLINES - Opp.Party(s)

Yashpal verma

09 Dec 2021

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ROPAR

 

                                               Consumer Complaint No.14 of 2020

                                              Date of institution: 18.06.2020

                                              Date of Decision: 09.12.2021

 

 

Yashpal Verma, aged about 32 years, son of Shri Shiv Kumar, resident of House No.96, Garden Colony, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar  

…….Complainant

Versus

 

1. Singapore Airlines, Unit 514, A & D, Time Tower, MG Road, Gurgram-122002 (Haryana), through its Managing Director
2. Goibibio, 19^th Floor, Tower ABC Epitome, Building No.5, DLF, Phase-2, Sector 24, Gurugram (Haryana) through its Managing Director/Manager
3. Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd., 19^th floor, Parinee Crescenazo, G-Block, Bandra Kural Complex, Opposite MCS Club, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051  

                                                             ……..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.

 

Quorum:   Shri Ranjit Singh, President.

                       Mrs. Ranvir Kaur, Member

 

Present:    Sh. Gaurav Verma, Special Power of Attorney by Sh. Yashpal Verma, Advocate 

Ops No.1 & 3 exparte vide order dated 11.12.2020

Sh. Vikas Verma, Advocate. for OP NO.2

              
 

Order dictated by :-  Shri Ranjit Singh, President

 

Order

 

The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant against the Opposite Parties on the ground that the complainant got purchased E-ticket No.0863855802249 through OP No.2, who is agent of OP No.1 for his air journey which was to be held on 31st March. The destination for the flight from New Delhi to Auckland for a sum of Rs.42,833/-. The complainant was paid the amount of Rs.42,833/- through Credit Card and the same was received by the OP No.2. The OP No.3 has assured him that in case, the flight of the complainant is cancel due to any reason then OP No.3 is reimburse 500 dollor to him and remaining amount is to be paid by the Ops No.1 & 2. It is further stated that due to lockdown imposed by the Government of India throughout the country from 24.3.2020 onwards and the same is still continuing, the OP No.1 had cancelled the flight, accordingly, the complainant could not make his said journey. Despite repeated request of the complainant, the Ops put on the matter on one pretext or the other. The aforesaid act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and it has caused mental as well as physical agony and also caused inconvenience to the complainant. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-

1. To refund Rs.42,833/- as cost of the eticket which was received by the OP no.2 for air journey.
2. To pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- as damages for mental, physical and financial harassment caused to the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses along with interest thereon @ 18% per annum from 31.3.2020 till realization.  

The complaint of the CC is signed and also verified.

1. In reply, the Ops No.1 & 3 have choosen to remain exparte vide order of this Commission dated 11.12.2020.

 

2.   In reply, the O.P. No.2 has challenging the veracity of the complaint on the ground of cause of action & jurisdiction etc. On merits, it is averred that the present complaint is false and frivolous. The complainant has not approached this Commission with bonafide intention and clean hands. The OP No.2 acts as merely a facilitator for booking confirmed air tickets/hotel bookings on behalf of its customers with the concerned service providers.  Once, the confirmed ticket is issued to the customer, the OP No.2 is discharged from its obligations and duties qua the said booking. The complainant has miserably failed to apprise this Commission that the OP No.2 has duly initiated the refund process towards the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the concerned airlines. It is further averred that as per the directions issued by the OP No.1, the complainant has been duly informed that the credit shell is valid for one year from the date of booking and the same can be used by the complainant to make a fresh booking for any sector. In the present complaint, the confirmed flight bookings were not honoured by the concerned airlines i.e. Singapore Airlines i.e. OP No.1 due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. After confirmation of the ticket, there is no relation between the customer and OP No.2 and OP NO.2 is discharged from its obligations and duties qua the said booking. The complainant and the OP No.2 to the present complaint are governed by terms and conditions agreed between them at the time of booking and as enumerated in the user agreement. The Forums and Commission are not entitled to modify the terms of the agreement, which had been arrived at between the parties and when there is an acute dispute relating to facts, the forum and commission ought not have gone behind the terms of the agreement and should have instead referred the parties to the Civil Courts. At the time of booking of the ticket, the complainant accepted the terms of user agreement, also agreed with the force majeure clause. Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on their part, the O.Ps. has denied any deficiency in service on their part.

3.           The complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A along    with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP No.1 has tendered some documents Ex.OP2/1 to  Ex.OP2/10 and  closed the evidence.  

4.           We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file along with written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the OP NO.2, carefully and minutely.

5.           The Special Power of Attorney of the complainant has argued that he booked e-ticket for journey from New Delhi to Auckland but due to Covid-19 Pandemic, the Government of India has imposed the lockdown throughout the country and cancelled the flight by the OP No.1. The complainant also requests to the Ops No.1 & 2 telephonically to refund the said air ticket but the Ops No.1 & 2 put on the matter on one pretext or the other. Lastly prayed to allow the complaint with cost.

6.           The learned counsel for the OP No.2 has argued that the complainant has not come with clean hands before this Commission and OP No.2 is not liable for any deficiency in service. The complainant filed the present complaint with malafide intentions with a view to force the OP No.2 to accede to the whims and comforts of the complainant. He further argued that OP No.2 being the facilitator between the concerned service provider and the intended traveler was under the obligation to provide the confirmed flight booking/tickets to its customer. After confirmation, the OP No.2 is discharged from its obligations and duties qua the said booking. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2.  He further argued that refund of the air tickets due to cancellation of the flight operations which were cancelled by the concerned airlines i.e. Singapore Airlines due to the force majeure event of the Nationwide lockdown being imposed by the Government of India and circular and guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs.  The learned counsel for the OP No.2 further argued that only OP No.1 is liable to refund the amount to the complainant. Lastly prayed to dismiss the complaint against OP No.2. 

7.           Now the question before us is whether the complainant has territorial jurisdiction to file the present complaint before this Commission or not? On perusal of the entire record, it reveals that that the complainant is reside within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission and as per Section 34 of the New Consumer Protection Act, 2019 this Commission has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint.

8.           After perusing the complaint, the version filed by the O.P No.2. and the evidence on the file, the point in controversy before us is whether the complainant has not approached the court with clean hands or not. We feel, that there is no evidence led by the OP No.2 that the CC has not approached the court with clean hands, as such, this preliminary objections raised by the OP No.2 are outrightly rejected

9.           Perusal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record., there is no dispute to the fact that complainant had purchased E-ticket No.0863855802249 through OP No.2 for his air journey for 31.3.2020 (22.45) to 01.04.2020 (13.20) from New Delhi to Auckland operated by OP No.1. It is also not in dispute that complainant had paid Rs.42,833/- through Credit Card. That fact is also not dispute that Singapore Airlines flight was cancelled by the air lines operator from New Delhi to Auckland due to lockdown imposed by the Government of India due to Covid-19 Pandemic. In this complaint, the complainant has specifically alleged that despite cancellation of flight, he was not received the refund amount till date.

10.         So far as the flight from New Delhi to Auckland by Singapore Airlines (OP NO.1) is concerned, it is admitted fact that this flight was cancelled by airlines operator itself due to Covid-19. In support of this complaint, the complainant has tendered various documents. Ex.C1 is the copy flight ticket from New Delhi to Singapore, Ex.C2 is the copy of travelling cover, Ex.C3 is the terms and conditions of Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited, Ex.C4 is the email conversation, Ex.C5 is the copy of statement of purpose. The Hon’ble Surpeme Court of India, in case titled as Parvasi Legal Cell Versus Union of India and Others an put forth the defence that after pronouncement of the judgment they have transferred the amount in the credit cell of the complainant and created Gocash in his account after pronouncement of the judgment and abide by the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. We have gone through the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, carefully and minutely. Hon’ble Apex Court, has directed the flight operators to refund the amount of ticket booking, flights of which have been cancelled due to lockdown upto 24.5.2020. Even, after pronouncement of this above said judgment by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the OP No.1 was not transferred the ticket amount to the account of complainant through OP No.2. OPs has kept over sleeping over the amount and willfully failed to refund the amount of complainant, which is deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and also cheating with the complainant. 

11.         The Opposite Party No.2 (Goibibo) is a travel agency and acting as mediator between the complainant and flight operators. It has taken various defence. The first defence of opposite party No.2 is that flight of complainant was cancelled due to outbreak of Covid-19, pandemic. The said outbreak of pandemic was declared as Force Majeure event by the Ministry of Finance and instance case be covered within the force majeure even because flight was cancelled due to outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic and Opposite Party No.2 has no deficiency in service. We are of the view that in the present facts and circumstances for cancellation of flight there is no deficiency in service on behalf of OPs but OPs kept on sleeping over the funds of complainant, which were transferred by the OP No.2 (Travel agency) to OP No.1 (Flight Operators) through him and willfully failed to transfer and refund this amount to the complainant. This is deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice on behalf of OPs. ‘

12.                   The OP No.2 has claimed itself to be a reputed and highly acclaimed tour and Travel Company having presence in all major parts of India and abroad and acts as a facilitator for booking for air tickets and hotel. The OP with such a good reputation and maintaining good relation with the various service providers as a facilitator in India and Abroad will definitely not have any problem in cancellation of the booking with various service providers. As in the regular course of business of OPs, such cancellation of bookings does take place in the day to day business and it cannot deny the refund of amount paid.  

13.         It is important to mention here that the complainant is being aggrieved by the non processing of the refund for the cancellation of the confirmed flight bookings for the flight from New Delhi to Auckland by the Singapore Airlines due to Covid-19 Pandemic, so the Singapore Airlines (OP No.1) is liable to refund the amount paid by the complainant at the time of purchasing the e ticket. Since the OP No.1 has chosen to remain ex-parte and otherwise the evidence of the CC appears to be cogent, reliable and trustworthy. It is, proved on the file that the after cancellation of the flight, the OP No.1 failed to refund the amount to the complainant. 

14.      It is pertinent to mention here that the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is benevolent legislation enacted to help the consumers, which are being regularly harassed by the unscrupulous airlines. We feel that the very purpose of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, will fail if such types of airlines are not brought to book and asked to pay compensation.

15.         No doubt, the complainant felt harassed with this act of the OPs. So we are of the opinion that complainant is entitled to refund of the price of the ticket. The complainant is also entitled to compensation for the harassment suffered in the hands of the OPs. We feel, that the O.Ps. had no cogent, reliable or any trustworthy reason to delay the refund of the ticket amount to the complainant.   

16.         In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present compliant stands allowed with the following directions to the Ops No.1 & 2:-

1. To refund the price of the air ticket i.e. Rs.42,833/- to the   complainant along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of purchase of the air ticket by the complainant.

2.        To a lum sum amount to the tune of Rs.15,000/- as  compensation and litigation expenses.

3.        The O.Ps. are further directed to comply with the order within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be consigned to record room.

Announced

December 09, 2021

(Ranjit Singh)

•  

                                            

 

(Ranvir Kaur)

•