O R D E R
SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT:
The brief facts of the complaint filed by the complainant against the Ops are, that she purchased Air ticket from Op No.1 through on line by using her credit card issued by Op No.1 by paying Rs.53,420/- on 05/11/2009 for traveling on 14/12/2009 from Bangalore to San Francisco and back to Bangalore on 16/01/2010 which was re-scheduled to 18/01/2010. That on 14/12/2009 she traveled from Bangalore to San Francisco without any problem. On 18/01/2010 she was to return from San Francisco to Bangalore. Then she received instructions from Airlines for on line check. That she could not do so. She checked at San Francisco Airport on that day and she was surprisingly informed by the second Op that she had not made payments of Rs.53,420/- towards purchase of ticket on 05/11/2009 and blocked the air ticket. That despite showing her e-statement sent by Op No.1 and payment she made towards that amount, the second Op did not oblige. Therefore, once again she had to purchase tickets for both sides by using her credit card. The complainant further alleging that despite purchase of ticket and payment of ticket money she was forced to pay Rs.56,043.20 through credit card and then she was allowed to travel to Bangalore and thereby has prayed for a direction to Op No.1, the bank through whose credit card she had paid ticket money to pay differential ticket amount with interest and to award compensation of Rs.50,000/-.
2. Ops have appeared through their advocate and filed version contending that complaint is not maintainable. Admitted to have issued a credit card to the complainant with credit limit of Rs.53,000/-. This Op further admitted online transaction done by the complainant on 06/11/2009 for a sum of Rs.53,420/- towards purchase of air tickets from the second Op. As per the SOA for the period from 19/10/2008 to 17/11/2009 opening balance was Rs.5,006.03, purchases were made at Rs.55,335.99 and this Op referring to the closing balance stated to had received a letter disputing the statement from the complainant on 02/12/2009. Then he wrote a letter to Op No.2 to furnish the supporting documents for the transaction done on 06/11/2009 referring to purchase of tickets. Op No.2 did not furnish the documents. Therefore, he debited the merchant for Rs.53,420/- and credited to complainant account on February 2010. This Op further stated that Op No.2 did not furnish the documents therefore had not made payments to Op No.2 soon after the transaction for which he cannot be held responsible and thereby denying his liability has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Op No.2 in his version admitted to have engaged in international airline transaction and this complainant had approached him for purchase of tickets through credit card issued by Op No.2 on 05/11/2009 for the journey on 14/12/2009 and return journey on 16/01/2010. This Op has admitted to had allowed the complainant to travel on 14/12/2009 from Bangalore to San Francisco. Then he received a letter in early January 2010 i.e. on 04/01/2010 from Op No.1 seeking certain documents in respect of complainant’s transaction towards purchase of her ticket for Rs.53,240/- since the complainant had disputed the transaction vide her letter dated 02/12/2009 they did not send the documents. This Op further admitted that they blocked the return journey ticket of the complainant and have stated that Op No.1 only informed them in the first week of January 2010 seeking certain documents for crediting ticket money to their account. Therefore, justifying their action in refusing travel of the complainant from San Francisco to Bangalore, admitted to had collected cost of tickets of both sides from the complainant at the time of her return journey and thereby denying any deficiency at their end has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and Ops have filed their affidavit evidence reiterating what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. Complainant along with the complaint has produced a copy of e-mail sent by Op No.1 to the complainant, copies of her credit card statement account, copies of few correspondences between herself and Ops. Op No.1 has also produced copies of credit card account of the complainant. Op No.2 has produced a copy of a letter addressed by Op No.1 to them and another copy of the letter addressed by the complainant to Op No.1 We have heard the counsel for both parties and perused the records.
5. On the above materials, following points for determination arise.
- Whether the complainant proves that the Ops have caused deficiency in his service by Op No.1 not crediting the ticket amount to the account of Op No.2 and Op No.2 by insisting upon the complainant to purchase ticket afresh on 18/01/2010?
- To what relief the complainant is entitled to and from whom?
6. Our findings are as under:
Point No.1 : Answered in part by holding that Op No.2 has caused
deficiency in his service.
Point No.2 : See the final order
REASONS
7. Answer on point No.1: The fact that the complainant had credit card issued by Op No.1, purchased air tickets from Op No.2 for a journey from Bangalore to San Francisco on 14/12/2009 and return journey on 18/01/2010 by paying Rs.56,043.20 in all through her credit card is not in dispute. Further, it is also not in dispute that the complainant was allowed to travel from Bangalore to San Francisco on 14/12/2009 by the second Op without any problem but stopped her for return journey on 18/01/2010 and that Op No.2 collected Rs.56,043.20 from her which was inclusive of fare for onward and return journey. The complainant aggrieved by this act has come up with this complaint has claimed relief against Op No.1
8. Complainant purchased air ticket on 06/11/2009 and not on 05/11/2009 as stated by one of the Ops and on the same day the first Op admittedly debited that amount to the account of the complainant. It is nobody’s case that the complainant had not arranged the money for the ticket and it became due. The question is whether the first Op delayed in crediting that amount to the account of Op No.2 or that Op No.2 had failed to contact Op No.1 and supply necessary documents to get the confirmation of crediting that amount to their account. The second Op who allowed the complainant to travel on 14/12/2009 did not raise any objection regarding non-payment of ticket money. But only on 18/01/2010 during return journey the complainant was prevented and recovered the cost of the tickets. Why Op No.2 did so and reason for such an act is not specifically stated before this forum. The first Op has contended as if the complainant had raised objection with regard to the transaction in question by addressing a letter to him and therefore stated as if something had happened. Op No.2 has produced a copy of the letter addressed by the complainant to the customer service officer of Op No.1 on 02/12/2009 which has no reference to payment of Rs.53,420/- towards the cost of the tickets but her objection was regarding Op No.1 charging her extra 3% on the transaction The first Op through their letter dated 04/01/2010 requested the second Op for copy of sales slip/documents requesting Op No.2 to produce the details of transaction or documents with regard to purchase of air tickets by the complainant from them on 06/11/2009 by using credit card for Rs.53,420/-. OP No.1 requested Op No.2 to send documents of this transaction before 19/01/2010 to enable them to arrange for crediting the ticket money recovered from the complainant. Further making clear that if they did not receive any reply from this Op No.2 by 19/01/2010 the amount will be recovered from them in the subsequent statement. Admittedly Op No.2 did not supply the transaction documents to them nor sent any reply in this regard. Therefore, it appears that for the default of Op No.2 in not sending the transaction documents Op No.1 did not credit the amount to the account of Op No.2. Further it could be seen that Op No.1 who allowed the complainant to travel on 14/12/2009 despite receipt of letter from Op No.1 to supply documents of transaction failed to respond to them nor took any steps to collect the ticket money from Op No.1 but stopped the complainant from traveling on 18/01/2010. If the second Op had responded to the letter of the first Op dated 04/01/2010 this situation of second Op complaining of not receiving ticket money and stopping the journey of the complainant would not have arisen. From considering all these aspects and undisputed failure of Op No.2 to respond to letter of Op No.1 has resulted in untold, inconvenience to the complainant which forced her to purchase tickets by use of credit card once again and she was put to harassment and mental agony and therefore it is Op No.2 has caused deficiency in the service and is liable to compensate the complainant. The complainant has admitted that thereafter the money paid at the first instance Rs.53,420/- has been re-paid to her. Then she would be entitled for the recovery of the excess ticket money of Rs.2,623.40 which was paid by her forcibly on 18/01/2010 by paying Rs.56,043.20 as against the earlier ticket money of Rs.53,420/- and in addition to that she would be entitled for reasonable damages for her inconvenience and mental agony. As the result, we answer point No.1 accordingly and pass the following order.
O R D E R
Complaint is allowed.
Op No.2 is directed to pay Rs.2,623.20 (Rupees Two Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Three and paise twenty only) the difference cost of the air ticket recovered from the complainant with interest @ 8% p.a from 18/01/2010 till it is repaid and that amount shall be paid within 30 days from the date of this order.
Op No.2 is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as damages to the complainant towards mental agony and inconvenience caused to her and that amount shall be paid within 30 days from the date of this order. Failing which Op No.2 shall pay interest @ 10% p.a from the date of this order till the date of payment.
Op No.2 shall also pay cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) to the complainant.
Complaint against Op No.1 is dismissed.
