Tripura

StateCommission

A/32/2016

Smt. Chanchala Laskar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri. Amitabha Das - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Mridul kanti Arya, Mr. Partha saha, Smt. Nikita Saha

30 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, TRIPURA

 

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE U.B. Saha,

PRESIDENT,

STATE COMMISSION

 

MRS. SOBHANA DATTA,

MEMBER,

STATE COMMISSION.

 

MR. NARAYAN CH. SHARMA,

MEMBER,

STATE COMMISSION.

 

 

APPEAL CASE No.A/32/2016

 

 

 

1. Smt. Chanchala Laskar,

W/o Shri Santimoy Laskar of Banamalipur, East Agartala,

Proprietor of Hindustan Tour & Travels,

Hindustan Carriers,

7, Laxmi Narayan Bari Road, Agartala,

District - West Tripura, Pin-799001.

                                                  ….    ….    ….    ….    Appellant/Opposite Party No.2.

                                                           

                   Vs

 

1. Sri Amitabha Das,

S/o Sri Ajit Kumar Das,

P.S. Bisramganj, P.O. Bisramganj,

District - Sepahijala, Pin – 799103.

 

2. Sri Prasanjit Datta,

S/o Sri Ajit Kumar Datta,

P.S. Bisramganj, P.O. Bisramganj,

District - Sepahijala, Pin – 799103.

 

3. Sri Biswajit Datta,

S/o Sri Ajit Kumar Datta,

P.S. Bisramganj, P.O. Bisramganj,

District - Sepahijala, Pin – 799103

                                        .…    ….    ….    ….   Respondents/Complainants.

4. Jet Airways (India) Limited,

Represented by its Managing Director,

S. M. Centre, Andheri, Kurla Road,

Andheri East, Mumbai – 400059.

                                        .…    ….    ….    ….   Respondent/Opposite Party No.1.

 

For the Appellant             :         Mr. Mridul Kanti Arya, Adv.

For the Respondents        :         Mr. Ratnadeep Paul, Adv. & Ms. Dalia Saha, Adv.

Date of Hearing                :         26.12.2016.

Date of delivery of Judgment:     30.12.2016.

 

 

 

J U D G M E N T

 

 

 

U.B. Saha, J,

          This appeal is filed by the appellant, Smt. Chanchala Laskar, Proprietor of Hindustan Tour & Travels, Laxmi Narayan Bari Road, Agartala under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Judgment dated 02.05.2016 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Tripura, Agartala (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Case No.CC-45/2015 whereby and whereunder the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint petition filed by the respondent nos.1, 2 & 3 (hereinafter referred to as complainant-petitioners) directing the Jet Airways (India) Ltd., the respondent no.4 herein (opposite party no.1 in the complaint petition) to refund Rs.10,500/- along with compensation of Rs.25,000/-for harassment and mental agony and further an amount of Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation, in total Rs.40,500/- to the complainant-petitioners and also directed the Proprietor of Hindustan Tour & Travels, the appellant herein (opposite party no.2 in the complaint petition) to pay compensation amounting to Rs.25,000/- to the complainant-petitioners within two months from the date of judgment, if not paid, it will carry interest @9% per annum till the payment is made.   

2. Heard Mr. M. K. Arya, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant, Smt. Chanchala Sarkar, Proprietor of Hindustan Tour & Travels (hereinafter referred to as Travel Agent). Also heard Mr. R. Paul Ld. Counsel and Ms. D. Saha, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant-petitioner nos.1, 2 & 3. None appears for the respondent no.4, Jet Airways (India) Ltd. as the Jet Airways had already complied with the direction upon them by the Ld. District Forum.   
3. Brief facts needed to be discussed are as follows:-

The complainant-petitioner nos.1, 2 & 3 had purchased three tickets from Jet Airways (India) Ltd. the respondent no.4 (hereinafter referred to as opposite party no.1) through its Travel Agent, the appellant herein (the opposite party no.2) on 3^rd January, 2014  for travelling by air on 4^th January, 2014 from Kolkata to Agartala via Guwahati by Flight No.9W 619 (Kolkata to Guwahati) & Flight No. 9W 2620 (Guwahati to Agartala) respectively. On 04.01.2014, the complainant-petitioners were informed by the opposite party no.1 that their flight had been cancelled and it would run from Kolkata to Agartala via Guwahati on the next day i.e. on 5^th January, 2014 and the departure time of Flight No.9W 619 from Kolkata to Guwahati was at 09.00 am and the departure time of Flight No. 9W 2620 from Guwahati to Agartala was at 01.30 pm. Accordingly, on 05.01.2014, the complainant-petitioner nos.1, 2 & 3 availed the journey from Kolkata to Guwahati and when they were waiting for the flight from Guwahati to Agartala, they were informed by the opposite party no.1 that the flight from Guwahati to Agartala was cancelled due to bad weather condition and the staff of the opposite party no.1 Jet Airways assured them regarding the full refund by endorsing their remark on the face of the ticket along with the seal of the Company and also informed them that the refund would be available at Agartala by the Travel Agent from which they purchased initial air ticket for the journey from Kolkata to Agartala. The complainant-petitioners thereafter proceeded to Agartala from Guwahati by road bearing all inconvenience and after reaching at Agartala they contacted with the Travel Agent, the opposite party no.2 to refund the amount of Rs.10,500/-, but the opposite party no.2 did not refund the same even after repeated request. Then the complainant-petitioners sent an ‘Advocate’s Notice’ on 17.10.2014, claiming the refund value of tickets amounting to Rs.10,500/- and also claiming Rs.40,000/- for their harassment and mental agony. As the opposite party no.1, Jet Airways by way of reply to the lawyer notice informed the complainant-petitioners to approach the Travel Agent, the opposite party no.2, accordingly, the complainant-petitioners approached but the said opposite party no.2 did not refund the money of the ticket. Hence, the complainant-petitioner nos.1, 2 & 3 filed the complaint petition under section 12 of the Consumer Protraction Act, 1986 before the Ld. District Forum.

4. Both opposite party nos.1 & 2 appeared before the Ld. District Forum and filed their respective written statement.

The opposite party no.2, Hindustan Tour & Travels in its written statement admitted the facts that the complainant-petitioner no.1 had purchased three tickets on 03.01.2014 from Jet Airways through it for travelling by air on 04.01.2014 from Kolkata to Agartala via Guwahati vide PNR No.KPSPJV, but denied the facts regarding purchase of ticket against which the complainant-petitioners are claiming refund as the PNR of the ticket was different i.e. PNR No.DZQGBE which was not issued by the opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2, the appellant herein also contended in its written statement that the complainant-petitioners never informed them about the cancellation or reissue of the ticket on 04.01.2014 from Kolkata to Agartala via Guwahati and not only that even they did not inform regarding the cancellation of ticket on 05.01.2014 from Guwahati to Agartala. It is further stated that before issuance of lawyer notice along with copy of the ticket the complainant-petitioners never approached to the opposite party no.2 for refund the money as claimed for. Thus, there was no deficiency of service on its part.

The opposite party no.1, the respondent no.4 herein, by filing written statement though admitted the facts regarding the cancellation of the flight from Guwahati to Agartala, but denied the contention of the complainant-petitioners that they were refused to refund the money. According to the opposite party no.1, the money could not be refunded to the complainant-petitioners because the agent did not process for refunding the money. Thus, the opposite party no.1, Jet Airways (India) Ltd. is not responsible for the fault of the agent.

5. The Ld. District Forum upon going through the pleadings of the parties had taken up the following points for deciding the case:-

1. Whether the petitioner is harassed by the opposite parties?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation for deficiency of service of the opposite parties?

6. In support of their contention, the complainant-petitioners produced the Copy of the Money receipt, three air tickets, Advocates notice, Registered letter of Jet Airways with AD card, Notice to the Hindustan Tour & Travels (Exhibit-1 series).
7. The opposite parties on the other hand produced Civil Aviation Requirement paper and Photocopies of air tickets.
8. The petitioner no.1 Amitabha Das examined himself as complainant. On the other hand, the opposite party no.1 examined one Koushik Datta, Senior Station Manager, Jet Airways and the opposite party no.2 examined its Proprietor Smt. Chanchala Sarkar.
9. Upon considering the evidence of witnesses adduced by the parties and on perusal of the documents submitted by the parties and also on hearing the Ld. Advocates of the parties, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint petition directing the opposite parties as stated (supra).
10. The opposite party no.1, Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (the respondent no.4 herein) did not file any appeal challenging the judgment of the Ld. District Forum as they have complied with the judgment of the District Forum.
11. The opposite party no.2, the appellant herein, has challenged the impugned judgment of the Ld. District Forum on the ground that the Ld. District Forum ought not to have directed the appellant (opposite party no.2)  to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant-petitioners as compensation as the opposite party no.2 did not commit any wrong or have deficiency in service. It is also contended that the stipulated period for claiming refund from Jet Airways was one year from the date of issue of the original ticket, which was expired on 03.01.2015; but the complainant-petitioners never informed the opposite party no.2 during the said stipulated period for refund of money.

It is the further case of the opposite party no.2 that the complainant-petitioners approached the Ld. District Forum with a flight ticket vide PNR No. DZQGBE, which was not issued by the opposite party no.2, the Travel Agent.

12. Mr. Arya, Ld. Counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2, the appellant herein, while urging for setting aside the direction of the Ld. District Forum so far the opposite party no.2 is concerned, has contended that the complainant-petitioner no.1 neither in his evidence nor in the complaint petition stated on which date the complainant-petitioners had met with the staff working in the appellant’s travel agency and they have also did not produce the original air ticket wherein the staff of the Jet Airways (India) Ltd. made their endorsement regarding cancellation of flight and refund of money without which the opposite party no.2, Travel Agent could not take up the matter with the Jet Airways, the opposite party no.1 (respondent no.4). Mr. Arya also submits that when the Ld. District Forum directed the Jet Airways for refunding Rs.10,500/- to the complainant-petitioners and also to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- for harassment and mental agony and further an amount of Rs.5,000/- as cost then the District Forum should not have directed the appellant-opposite party no.2 to pay further Rs.25,000/- to the complainant-petitioners in absence of their deficiency of service.
13. Mr. Paul, Ld. Counsel appearing for the complainant-petitioners while supporting the judgment of the Ld. District Forum contended that from the evidence of P.W.1, Sri Amitabha Das, one of the passenger, it would be evident that he and two other complainants/passengers after coming to Agartala by road with lot of sufferings informed the opposite party no.2 for refund the amount of Rs.10,500/-, the purchased cost of three tickets, but in spite of repeated request failed to get refund of money from the Travel Agent and thereafter, many times, the complainant-petitioners made contact with the said party for getting the refund of the value of ticket, but did not to get the said amount. He has finally contended that for the sake of argument, it is admitted that the complainant-petitioners did not furnish their air tickets upon which the staff of the Jet Airways made endorsement regarding cancellation of flight and for refunding the money, then also the opposite party no.2 cannot avoid its responsibility as the letter of Jet Airways addressed to P.W.1 was communicated to the opposite party no.2 and also copy of the air tickets were received by them along with the lawyer notice.
14. We have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the evidence on record. We have also considered the submission of the Ld. Counsel of the parties.
15. As the the Jet Airways accepted the verdict of Ld. District Forum so far their part is concerned, it is not necessary on our part to discuss as to whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the Jet Airways. In this appeal, we have to consider as to whether the appellant-opposite party no.2 in any way harassed the complainant-petitioners and/or there was any deficiency of service on the part of the appellant-opposite party no.2.
16. After going through the evidence of the P.W.1, we do not get any materials as to when they met with the staff of opposite party no.2 and when they handed over the original ticket wherein the staff of the Jet Airways at Guwahati made their endorsement regarding cancellation of the flight from Guwahati to Agartala and refund the full amount. Unless, those documents i.e. the tickets with endorsement of the Jet Airways are placed before the Travel Agent, the Travel Agent cannot take up the matter with Jet Airways for refunding the purchased money of the air tickets. However, it is the admitted position that the Jet Airways requested the complainant-petitioner (P.W.1) to take up the matter with the Travel Agent, the opposite party no.2 for refund of the money as they purchased the ticket initially from the Travel Agent for their journey from Kolkata to Agartala on 4^th January, 2014 which was subsequently cancelled and the said request letter of the Jet Airways was also communicated to the appellant, Travel Agent (appellant-opposite party no.2). Thus, the fact remains that the Travel Agent though aware regarding the request of Jet Airways, but did not take up the matter either with the Jet Airways or refunded the money to the complainant-petitioners. Therefore, we are of the view that the Ld. District Forum rightly came to a finding that there was deficiency of service even on the part of the appellant-opposite party no.2. Now the question is whether the direction to the opposite party no.2 for making payment of Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the complainant-petitioners is higher in side or not. According to us, when the Jet Airways was directed to refund Rs.10,500/- to the complainant-petitioners as cost of tickets and also to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- for harassment and mental agony and further an amount of Rs.5,000/- as cost that is in total Rs.40,500/-. In that case, the liability of the Travel Agent should be lesser as the complainant-petitioners could not establish their contention that they met with the Travel Agent before issuance of the lawyer notice and sending the copy of the letter of Jet Airways addressed to P.W.1 for refunding the value of ticket. We are of the further view that in absence of the air ticket, wherein the staff of the Jet Airways made their endorsement regarding cancellation of flights and refund of money, it was not possible for the Travel Agent, opposite party no.2 to refund the cost of the air ticket in time.
17. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that it would meet justice, if the direction of the District Forum to the appellant, opposite party no.2 to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant-petitioners is reduced to Rs.10,000/. Accordingly, it is ordered. The appellant, opposite party no.2 shall pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant-petitioners, the respondent nos.1, 2 & 3 herein, within six weeks from the date of this judgment, if not paid within the aforesaid period, then it will carry interest @9% per annum till the payment is made. No order as to costs. The appeal is partly allowed.

Send down the records to the Ld. District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala. 

 

         

MEMBER State Commission Tripura MEMBER State Commission Tripura PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura