DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 302/ 4.8.2017

                                      Decided on:         3.2.2021

Parmod Singh Patyal s/o Late S.S.Patyal, Advocate Civil Court Rajpura, Chamber No.314, Near Courts Complex, Rajpura.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Sumit Bakshi Director of Vision International,3-4 Opp.C.M.Model School, Rajpura, District Patiala.
2. Jet Airways (India) Limited Registered Office, Siroya Centre, Sahar Airport Road, Andheri (East)Mumbai-400099 through its Chairman/Managing Director email

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member 

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.Parmod Singh, complainant in person.

                                      Opposite party No.1 exparte.

                                      Sh.Puneet Gupta, counsel for OPs No.2&3.

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Parmod Singh Patyal (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Sumit Bakshi, Director of Vision International and others (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) .
2. Briefly the case of the complainant is that  he booked three return tickets  for the sum of Rs.16411/-.It is averred that another grandson of complainant also desired to accompany him to Jaipur by air and therefore, on 28.5.2017 at 7.40 pm he got booked one return ticket for his grandson namely Daivik Singh Patial, in Jet Airways flight from Chandigarh to Jaipur  from OP No.1 who told the complaint that only one seat has left and in case the seat was not booked there and then no seat would be available .It is averred that since the seat was urgently required, the same was got booked for which OP charged Rs.7500/-. It is further averred that on searching the booking of jet airways for the same flight, it was found that as many as seven seats were still lying vacant as on 29.5.2017 at 8.30 pm and the fare of same flight return tickets for the same dates was found to be Rs.5873/- and the OP no.1 had charged Rs.1627/-in excess from the complainant. No discount was given as was given by other agent while getting booked the tickets. The complainant sent complaint dated 30.5.2017 to OPs No.1&2 who desired some documents which were sent to them but no action has been taken nor the OPs refunded the excess amount charged from the complainant .There is thus deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, which caused unnecessary harassment and humiliation to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.1627/- charged in excess by OP No.1 alongwith interest and also to pay compensation and costs of complaint.
3. Upon notice OPs No.2&3 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply while OP No.1 did not come present to contest the complaint and was accordingly proceeded against exparte.
4. In the reply filed by OPs No.2&3 preliminary objections have been raised that the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands and the complaint is totally false, frivolous and vexatious and has been filed with malafide intentions.
5. On merits it is submitted that the complainant booked the ticket for his grandson through OP No.1 and the OPs have no knowledge about the transaction took place between the complainant and OP No.1.It is further pleaded that as per regulations of CAR, the refund request of the air tickets booked through the travel agents are solely to be entertained by the travel agents only and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. After denying all other averments the OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. In support of the complaint, the complainant tendered Ex.CA his affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C7.
7. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Ms.Neha Vartak, authorized signatory of OPs No.2&3 alongwith documents Exs.OP1 and OP3 and closed the evidence.
8. Complainant also filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
9. The ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant has booked three return tickets from Chandigarh to Jaipur  and from Jaipur to Chandigarh  and tickets were taken from OP No.3.The ld. counsel further argued that another grandson desired to accompany to Jaipur by air, therefore, on 28.5.2017 at 7.40pm, complainant got booked one return ticket for his grandson namely Daivik Singh Patial in Jet Airways which was departure to on 16.6.2017 from Chandigarh to Jaipur  and from Jaipur to Chandigarh on 20.6.2017. The ld. counsel further argued that the agent of OP No.1 told that only one seat has been left and in case the seat is not booked then no seat shall be available and the complainant has purchased that ticket for Rs.7500/-.The ld. counsel further argued that from the pleadings it is clear that Sumit Bakshi, Director of OP No.1 has charged excess amount of Rs.1627/- and prayed that amount be got refunded.
10. Notice of the complaint was given to OP No.1 but OP No.1 did not appear and was accordingly proceeded against ex-parte.
11. From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the main dispute is against OP No.1 who has not appeared and was proceeded against ex-parte.The complainant has deposed that OP no.1 has charged Rs.1627/- more from him.
12. To prove  this case, complainant has tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA and  he has deposed as per his complaint.Ex.C1 is the ticket of Jet Airways,Ex.C2 is another ticket in the name of Daivik Singh Patial in which Rs.1627/- were charged in excess,Ex.C3 is another ticket from Chandigarh to Jaipur,Ex.C4 is the legal notice sent to Jet Airways.
13. On behalf of OPs No.2&3 Ms. Neha Vartak, as tendered her affidavit, Ex.OPA and she has deposed as per the written statement. It is clearly mentioned in the affidavit that the refund if any is to be given by the travel agent.Ex.OP1 is the guidelines of refund of airline tickets.
14. In para no.5 of the affidavit, Ex.OPA tendered by OPs No.2&3 in evidence, it is stated that OP No.2 has no knowledge about the transactions entered by the passengers with the travel agent. OP No.2 is neither involved nor aware of the transaction arrived at between the complainant and OP No.1. It is made  clear that Jet airways has not charged excess amount and the same has been taken by travel agent and is to be refunded by him. It is also the stand of OPs that they have never charged any excess amount and the fault lies with the travel agent.
15. So by keeping in view the pleadings of the parties and evidence placed on record, it is clear that excess amount of Rs.1627/- was charged by OP No.1.
16. So the complaint stands allowed and the OP No.1 is directed to refund Rs.1627/-charged in excess from the complainant alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date this complaint was filed i.e.4.8.2017 till realization. The OP No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.5000/-as compensation and Rs.5000/-as litigation expenses. Compliance of the order be made by the  OP No.1 within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:3.2.2021         

                                                  Y.S.Matta                        Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                                   Member                         President