SMT. MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER
This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 for an order directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation mental agony caused to the complainant and cost of proceedings for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.
The case of the complainant in brief
The complainant had booked a flight ticket of Viet Jet Air on 07/10/2022 for 07/12/2022 Bangalore to Hanoi through OP No.2 vide trip ID 221007743008 OF Viet jet and on the same day return ticket from Hanoi to Bangalore for 12/12/2022 vide trip ID No.221007743754. On 11/10/2022 an e-mail was received conveying that the return flight was cancelled by the Airlines. So the complainant made various attempts seeking alternate of flight options but were in vain for the attitude of the OP. The staff of OP were all the time seeking 24 hours time to sort it out which added to almost 14 days. All the multiple phone calls by spending almost 8 to 10 hours. The mail regarding the cancellation of return flight never appeared in her mail till 08/11/2022 as it landed up in spam mail box. The OPs are not providing any alternate arrangements other than providing refund at the original flight charges. No updates on cancellation of ongoing flight from Bangalore to Hanoi is still a mystery. On 04/12/2022, just 2 days before the trip, when she called the OP to confirm the flight status, she was shocked to see their response that the flight has been cancelled. It is come to know that the message regarding discontinuation of flights from Bangalore till 31/12/2022 was shared by Viet Jet Airline with the OP over a moth back. But the OPs not conveyed the message to the complainant. Then the complainant send a lawyer notice to OPs 1 and 2 on 18/01/2023. But the OPs1 and 2 failed to send any reply. For the booking of return ticket at last moment the complainant lost more than Rs.15,000/- in that regard and lost more than 10 hours for contacting and talking their executives and staff members. The act of OPs the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss. So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Hence the complaint.
After filing the complaint notice issued to both OPs. After receiving notice OP 1 and 2 appeared before the commission and filed their written version. OP 1 and 2 contended that who acts as an intermediary between the complainant, Airline company for booking of ticket purpose only and the intimation of cancellation of flight to the complainant was delayed due to Airline company itself. So there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP No.1 and 2 and the complaint may be dismissed. After receiving the version of OP 1 and 2 the complainant filed a petition to implead OP No.3 ie, the Viet Jet Air. Then the petition is allowed by the commission and notice issued to additional OP No.3. Additional OP No.3 received the notice on 11/03/2024. After receiving the notice OP No.3 is not appeared before the commission and not filed his version. Then the commission came to be proceed against the OP No.3 is absent and set ex-parte.
On the basis of the rival contentions by the pleadings the following issues were framed for considerations.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of OPs?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
- Relief and cost?
The evidence consists of the oral testimony of Pw1 the power of Attorney holder of complainant and Ext. A1 to A4 were marked. On OPs’ side no oral or documentary evidence.
Issue No.1
The power of attorney holder of complainant adduced evidence before the commission by submitting his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the contentions in the version. He was cross examined by as Pw1 by OP1 and 2. According to the complainant Ext.A1 to A4 were marked on his part. Ext.A1 is the flight ticket dated 07/12/2022, Bangalore to Hanoi, ticket trip ID No.221007743008 and Ext.A2 is the return ticket dated 12/12/2022 Hanoi to Bangalore, ticket trip ID 221007743754. Ext.A3 is the copy of registered lawyer notice, and Ext.A4 is the postal receipts. At the time of evidence the complainant deposed that “നിങ്ങളുടെ മകളാണ് കേസ്സിൽ പരാതിക്കാരി? അതെ. അതുകൊണ്ടുതന്നെ കേസ്സ് കാര്യങ്ങളെ കുറിച്ച് നിങ്ങൾക്ക് പറഞ്ഞ് കേട്ടറിവേ ഉള്ളൂ? അതെ. പരാതിക്കാരിയുടെ ഫ്ലൈറ്റ് ടിക്കറ്റ് cancel ആയ കാര്യം 11/10/2022 ന് തന്നെ ഇ-മെയിൽ വഴി OP നിങ്ങളെ അറിയിച്ചിരുന്നു? ശരിയാണ്. Cancel ചെയ്ത ടിക്കറ്റിെൻറ മുഴുവൻ amount ഉം 24 മണിക്കൂറിനുള്ളിൽ OP1 റീഫണ്ട് ചെയ്തിട്ടുണ്ട്? റീഫണ്ട് ചെയ്തിട്ടുണ്ട്. OP1 and 2 ടിക്കറ്റ് ബുക്ക് ചെയ്യുന്ന ഇടനിലക്കാർ മാത്രമാണ്? അതെ. So it is clear that the OP No.3 is delayed in informing the cancellation of ongoing journey of the complainant. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP 1 and 2. So OP No.1 and 2’s liability is exonerated. But OP No.3 is not appeared before the commission and not proved their defense also. The act of OP No.3 the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss. So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP’ No.3. Hence the issue No.1 found in favor of the complainant and answered accordingly.
Issue No.2&3
As discussed above the OP No.3 is delayed in informing the cancellation of ongoing journey of the complainant. The OP No.3 did not set off the PNR history with respect to the onward journey, in result an e-mail showing cancellation of the onward ticket had not been sent to the complainant on time. So the holiday trip of the complainant was spoiled and she forced to book a return ticket in the last moment the complainant lost more than Rs.15,000/- in this regard. So there is deficiency of service on the part of OP No.3. OP No.3 is directly bound to redressal the grievance caused to the complainant. Therefore we hold that the OP No.3 is liable to compensate the complainant. So the complainant is entitled to get Rs.20,000/- from OP No.3 as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost. Thus the issue No.2 & 3 are also answered accordingly.
In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party No.3 to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost within 30 days of receipt of this order. In default the amount of Rs. 20,000/- carries 12% interest per annum from the date of order till realization. Failing which, the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Exhibits for complainant
A1- Flight ticket
A2- Return Flight Ticket
A3- Lawyer notice
A4- Postal receipt
Pw1- P V Gopinath- P/A holder of Complainant.
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forwarded by order/
Assistant Registrar
