Haryana

Karnal

CC/499/2022

Naveen Verma - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA SIA Airlines Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Dharamvir

26 Jul 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No. 499 of 2022

                                                        Date of instt.29.08.2022

                                                        Date of Decision:26.07.2023

Naveen Verma son of Shri Sat Pal Verma, resident of house no.481, Sector-8, Urban Estate, Karnal. Mobile no.9416210880. Aadhar no.3565 4497 5272.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

1.     TATA SIA Airlines Ltd. Registered office Jeevan Bharti Tower-1, 10^th floor, 124 Cannaught Circus, New Delhi 1100 through its Managing Director. Email ID the  

2.     TATA SIA Airlines Ltd. Corporate office Intellion Edge, Tower-a, 9^th and 10^th floor, South Peripheral Road, Sector-72, Gurugram, Haryana-122101, through its Managing Director.

3.     Mr. Kunal Panchal, Hawkwings Travels, SCO no.30, 2^nd floor, Mugal Canal, Karnal.

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik……Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

Argued by: Shri Dharamvir, counsel for complainant

                   Shri Vikas Rana, counsel for the OPs no.1 and 2.

                   Shri Naveen Kumar, counsel for the OP no.3

                    (Dr. Rekha chaudhary, memebr)

ORDER:                   

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is having only one son namely Abhinandan Verma who is studying in 9^th standard in Saint Theresa’s Covent Senior Secondary School, Karnal. The son of complainant is a brilliant student of his class. One of the relatives of complainant is residing at Singapore who has invited the complainant alongwith his wife namely Seema Bhama and son Abhinandan Verma to attend the holy function at his house. After receiving the invitation, complainant contacted to Mr. Kunal Panchal, Hawkwings Traves, Karnal i.e. OP no.3 and asked him to make arrangement for visa, tickets etc. for Singapore. After confirming all the facts and required documents from concerned airlines, Mr. Kunal Panchal, made arrangement of tickets, visa etc. for the complainant and his family members. In this regard complainant has paid Rs.1,33,000/- to Mr. Kunal Panchal who further purchased three return ticket from Vistara Airlines (of dated 12.06.2022 and 22.06.2022) of flight no.UK 115 & UK 116 i.e. ticket no.2283906444684 in the name of Naveen Verma, ticket no.2283906444685 in the name of Seema Bhama and ticket no. 2283906444686 in the name of Abhinandan Verma, with airlines ref: (PNR) 6XE9Z3. It is further pleaded that in remarks column of the SG Arrival form DE no.Z5045F8611 pertaining to son of the complainant Abhinandan Verma, it is clearly mentioned by concerned authorities to “please produce covid-19 Pre Departure Test (PDT) result (for non fully vaccinated travelers above 12 years old) and entry approval (except long term pass holders below 18 years old and short term visitors below 13 years old) for checks by transport operators and/or authorities” and this requirement was fulfilled by son of the complainant as he was having a negative RTPCR report before his travel. It is submitted that the son of complainant was vaccinated with 1^st dose of Corbevax Vaccine. The son of complainant also got conducted his covid-19 Virus Real Time PCR Test from all Safe Laboratory, Gurugram within 72 hours of his travel and the report of which was negative as on 11.06.2022. On 11.06.2022, complainant alongwith his family reached at the IGI Airport, New Delhi and has shown all the relevant and required documents to the authorities and officials of OPs. But it is very surprised to see that the authorities and official of the of the OPs did not allow the son of complainant to travel to Singapore by saying that the document regarding health of Abhinandan Verma is not complete, whereas the complainant has shown them all relevant documents related to his son including the RTPCR negative report (which was conducted within 72 hours of his travel) as required by the Immigration and checking Authority, Singapore, which is clearly mentioned on the SG Arrival form of the complainant’s son. The complainant requested the OPs to allow his son to travel alongwith them as he was possessing all the relevant required documents but they did not even pay any heed to the request of complainant and also put pressure to complainant to get the ticket of his son by saying that if the complainant would apply for refund before departure of flight then the Airlines authorities would refund the whole amount of the ticket and they also told that if the complainant would apply for refund of ticket after the departure of flight then the ticket would automatically be cancelled and OPs  no.1 and 2 would not pay anything in that condition. Thereafter, complainant contacted the OP no.3, the travel agent of the complainant and narrated him the whole matter and further asked him to cancel all the three tickets as it was not possible for the complainant to leave alone his 13½ years old child at the Airport. The complainant further contacted one of his relatives at Gurugram to come to the Airport to pick them up back to home due to nuisance created by the OPs, who immediately came and suggested the complainant that he would take the son of the complainant alongwith him and also asked the complainant to travel to Singapore with his wife leaving his son behind. Thereafter, complainant contacted Mr. Kunal and asked him to apply for cancellation of ticket of his son.  Thereafter, complainant having no alternate but to leave his only loving son at the house of one of his relatives, he and his wife went to Singapore with tears in their eyes. The education and motivational trip planned by the complainant for his only son to study abroad has vanished which is very painful. The officials of the OPs no.1 and 2 have returned a sum of Rs.34,516/- in lieu of cancelled ticket of the complainant’s son after deducting an amount of Rs.4925/- , the said amount deducted by the OPs no.1 and 2 illegally and unlawfully. Thereafter, complainant contacted the OPs so many times and requested to pay the remaining amount of Rs.4925/- to complainant but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and lastly refused to pay the same. It is further averred that the wife of complainant is serving in Education Department. For the education and motivational trip of her son, the wife of complainant got the permission from higher authorities of the department to go abroad with great difficulty, but due to the illegal act and conduct of the OPs, the purpose of the complainant and his wife for which they arranged the whole trip has not been fulfilled because the OPs have not allowed the son of complainant to travel without any reason and as such complainant has lost Rs.1,50,000/- on purchase of tickets, visa, travel insurance etc. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs no.1 and 2 appeared and filed its written version, raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant is making contradictory submission at para no.12 of the complaint. On one hand, he has cancelled the ticket of his son himself, as he realized that his son is not carrying Covid-19 vaccination as per the approved list of vaccines issued by the Singapore Government, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and thus availed the benefit of refund, but on the other hand, he alleges wrong doing on the part of the OPs. The son of complainant was not vaccinated as per the approved list of vaccines. The son of complainant had received a dose of unapproved vaccine, being Corbevax, the airline could not have permitted him boarding, after considering all circumstances cancelled his son’s ticket. The OPs are bound to apprise the passengers of the rules and regulations of the destination/foreign countries in order to avoid any unpleasant experience or trouble upon landing. No harm was caused to him as he has received the refund after deduction of cancellation charges. It is further pleaded that complainant had availed a travel insurance through M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. but has failed to implead the same as the party to the present complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.3 filed its separate written version, raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi and cause of action. On merits, it is pleaded that the customer care services of Vistara Airlines confirmed that in case anybody is not vaccinated or partially vaccinated then he/she has to provide an RTPCR report. Accordingly, after confirming all the facts and required documents from concerned airlines, the OP no.3 made arrangement of tickets, visa etc. for the complainant and his family. It is further pleaded that OP purchased three return tickets from Vistara Airlines (of dated 12.06.2022 and 22.06.2022) of flight no.UK 115 and UK 116) i.e. tickets no.2283906444684 in the name of Naveen Verma, ticket no.2283906444685 in the name of Seema Bhama and ticket no. 2283906444686 in the name of Abhinandan Verma, with airlines ref: (PNR) 6XE9Z3. The son of complainant also got conducted his covid-19 Virus Real Time PCR Test form All safe Laboratory, Gurugram within 72 hours of his travel and the report of which was negative as on 11.06.2022. It is further pleaded that OPs no.1 and 2 illegally and unlawfully did not allow the son of complainant to travel to Sinapore by saying that the document regarding health of Abhinandan Verma is not complete, whereas the complainant and his family members have completed all the formalities in all respect. It is further pleaded that on the asking of the complainant the OP no.3 applied for cancellation of one ticket i.e. ticket no. 2283906444686 in the name of the complainant’s son. It is further pleaded that the official of the OPs no.1 and 2 have returned a sum of Rs.34,516/- in lieu of cancelled ticket of the complainant’s son after deducting an amount of Rs.4925/- cancellation charges.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of invitation letter Ex.C1, copy of E-visa (Abhinandan) Ex.C2, copy of passport of Abhinandan Ex.C3, copy of E-ticket Singapore Ex.C4, copy of travel insurance of Abhinandan Ex.C5, copy of SG travel card issued by Immigration and check point authority Singapore of Abhinandan Ex.C6,  copy of covid-19 vaccination certificate Ex.C7, copy of RTPCR negative report of Abhinandan Ex.C8, copy of ticket invoice issued by Hawkwing Travel Ex.C9, copy of credit note issued by Hawkwing Travel  Ex.C10, copy of email dated 04.07.2022 of legal notice Ex.C11, copy of legal notice Ex.C12, postal receipt Ex.C13 and Ex.C14, acknowledgement Ex.C15, copy of bank passbook Ex.C16, copy of email regarding travel insurance of Abhinandan Ex.C17 and closed the evidence on 30.11.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs no.1 and 2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Mr. Shashank Jain Ex.OPW1/A, copy of guidelines of Singapore regarding entering in Singapore Ex.OP1, copy of condition of carriage Ex.OP2, copy of list of approve vaccines Ex.OP3, copy of fare refund/receipt Ex.OP4, copy of Governor Law Ex.OP5, copy of Governing law and jurisdiction Ex.OP6, power of attorney Ex.OP7 and closed the evidence on 27.02.2023 by suffering separate statement.

7.             OP no.3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Kunal Panchal, Hawkwings Travels Ex.OP3/A and closed the evidence on 06.01.2023 by suffering separate statement.

8.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

9.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant approached to Mr. Kunal Panchal, Hawkwings Travels, Karnal i.e. OP no.3  to make arrangement for visa, tickets etc. for Singapore for himself and his family. OP no.3 made arrangement of tickets, visa etc. Complainant has paid Rs.1,33,000/- to OP no.3, who also purchased three return ticket from Vistara Airlines (of dated 12.06.2022 and 22.06.2022) of flight no.UK 115 & UK 116. On 11.06.2022, complainant alongwith his family reached at the IGI Airport, New Delhi and has shown all the relevant and required documents to the authorities and officials of OPs. The authorities and official of the of the OPs did not allow the son of complainant to travel to Singapore by saying that the document regarding health of Abhinandan Verma is not complete, whereas the complainant has shown them all relevant documents related to his son including the RTPCR negative report, which was conducted within 72 hours of his travel as required by the Immigration and checking Authority, Singapore. OPs put pressure to complainant to get cancel the ticket of his son by saying that if the complainant would apply for refund before departure of flight then the Airlines authorities would refund the whole amount of the ticket and they also told that if the complainant would apply for refund of ticket after the departure of flight then the ticket would automatically be cancelled and OPs  no.1 and 2 would not pay anything in that condition. Complainant contacted to OP no.3 and asked him to apply for cancellation of ticket of his son.  Complainant was having no alternate but to leave his only loving son at the house of one of his relatives. Etc. The education and motivational trip planned by the complainant for his son to study abroad has vanished. The purpose of the complainant and his wife for which they arranged the whole trip has not been fulfilled because the OPs have not allowed the son of complainant to travel without any reason and as such complainant has lost Rs.1,50,000/- on purchase of tickets, visa, travel insurance. The officials of the OPs no.1 and 2 have returned a sum of Rs.34,516/- in lieu of cancelled ticket of the complainant’s son after deducting an amount of Rs.4925/-, the said amount deducted by the OPs no.1 and 2 illegally and unlawfully. Complainant contacted the OPs so many times and requested to pay the remaining amount of Rs.4925/- to complainant but OPs did not pay the same and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

10.           Per contra, learned counsel for the OPs no.1 and 2, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complainant has cancelled the ticket of his son himself, as he realized that his son is not carrying Covid-19 vaccination as per the approved list of vaccines issued by the Singapore Government, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and thus availed the benefit of refund. The son of complainant was not vaccinated as per the approved list of vaccines. The son of complainant had received a dose of unapproved vaccine, being Corbevax, the airline could not have permitted him boarding, after considering all circumstances cancelled his son’s ticket. No harm was caused to complainant as he has received the refund after deduction of cancellation charges and prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OPs no.1 and 2.

11.           Learned counsel for OP no.3, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that pleaded that the customer care services of Vistara Airlines confirmed that in case anybody is not vaccinated or partially vaccinated then he/she has to provide an RTPCR report. Accordingly, after confirming all the facts and required documents from concerned airlines, the OP no.3 made arrangement of tickets, visa etc. for the complainant and his family. OP purchased three return tickets from Vistara Airlines  in the name of Naveen Verma, Seema Bhama and Abhinandan Verma,. The son of complainant also got conducted his covid-19 Virus Real Time PCR Test form All safe Laboratory, Gurugram within 72 hours of his travel and the report of which was negative as on 11.06.2022. OPs no.1 and 2 illegally and unlawfully did not allow the son of complainant to travel to Sinapore by saying that the document regarding health of Abhinandan Verma is not complete, whereas the complainant and his family members have completed all the formalities in all respect. He further argued that on the asking of the complainant, the OP no.3 applied for cancellation of one ticket, which is in the name of the complainant’s son. The official of the OPs no.1 and 2 have returned a sum of Rs.34,516/- in lieu of cancelled ticket of the complainant’s son after deducting an amount of Rs.4925/- cancellation charges and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.3.

12.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

13.           Admittedly, complainant purchased three air tickets  from Vistara Airlines for himself and his family members to go to Singapore. It is also admitted that the ticket of son of complainant was cancelled and OPs no.1 and 2 refund the amount of Rs.34,516/-after deducting an amount of Rs.4925/-.

14.           As per version of complainant, on 11.06.2022, he alongwith his family reached at the IGI Airport, New Delhi  for a visit to Singapore and has shown all the relevant and required documents to the authorities and officials of the OPs but the authorities of the OPs did not allow the son of complainant to travel to Singapore by saying that the document regarding health of Abhinandan Verma is not complete, inspite of showing to OPs all relevant documents related to his son including the RTPCR negative report, which was conducted within 72 hours of his travel as required by the Immigration and checking Authority, Singapore. As per version of the OPs no.1 and 2, as per guidelines of Singapore regarding entering in Singapore Ex.OP1, Travellers born on or before 31 December 2009 (i.e. age 13 and above by year of birth) may enter Singapore as per normal without testing or quarantine, only if they have taken the minimum WHO EUL vaccine dosage listing below atleast two weeks before arrival in Singapore and can show proof of vaccination.

15.           The onus to prove his version was relied upon the complainant. To prove his version, complainant has placed on file copy of covid-19 vaccination certificate Ex.C7 and copy of RTPCR negative report of Abhinandan Ex.C8. The RTPCR report Ex.C8, which was conducted within 72 hours of travel. Meaning, thereby, complainant had fulfilled all the requirement of the OPs to travel for Singapore but OPs intentionally and deliberately harassed the complainant, for not allowing his son to travel for Singapore and due to the said compelling circumstances, complainant got cancelled the ticket of his son. Situation gets more difficult, in case if the complainant had not had the option to leave his minor son to his close relative, in that situation, complainant had to would cancel his whole trip to Singapore for the safety and security of his minor son. It was the duty of the OP to timely inform the complainant about the rules regarding the minor's visit to Singapore, but they did not do so. OPs have vanished the purpose behind visiting to Singapore. Thus, the said act of the OPs no.1 and 2 amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

16.           Complainant has claimed Rs.1,50,000/- which has been spent by the complainant for the purchase of ticket, visa etc. and also claimed Rs.4925/- alongwith interest. As complainant and his wife have visited Singapore, so, complainant is not entitled for the whole amount of Rs.1,50,000/- for ticket, visa etc but entitle for only for refund of one ticket of his son. Admittedly, OPs have refunded Rs.34,516/- to the complainant in connection with ticket of his son. Hence, he is entitled for the remaining amount of Rs.4925/- from the OPs no.1 and 2 alongwith compensation for harassment, mental pain and agony and towards litigation expenses.

17.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the OPs no.1 and 2 to pay Rs.4925/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposition till its realization. We further direct the OPs no1. And 2 to pay Rs.40,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.11,000/- towards the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. Complaint qua OP no.3 stands dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:26.07.2023

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

(Vineet Kaushik)                (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                        Member                             Member