Haryana

Panchkula

CC/460/2019

PAWAN KHURANA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

TRAVELGARH - Opp.Party(s)

AMIT SINGLA.

14 Jul 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	460 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	09.08.2019
Date of Decision	:	14.07.2023

 

 

Pawan Khurana S/o Late Sh. G.R.Khurana, R/o House No.150, Sector-17, Panchkula.                                                                                                                                                      ..….Complainant

Versus                                                                  

1.     Travelgarh through its proprietor/partner/authorized signatory   having its office at Cabin no.204, 2^nd Floor, SCO No.349, Sector-  9, Panchkula, Haryana.

2.     British Airways through its Managing Director, having its office at        DLF Plaza Tower, Phase I, DLF City, Block B, Sector-26A,        Sikanderpur Ghosi, Gurgrum, Haryana-122002.

                                                                                                                                                                       ……Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

 

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

                        Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

                        Dr. Barhm Parkash Yadav, Member. 

 

 

For the Parties:   Sh.Rubek Sood, Advocate for the complainant.

                        Sh.Gagandeep Singh, Advocate for the OP No.1.

                        Sh.Shashank Sharma, Advocate for the OP No.2.

 

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.             Briefly stated, the facts, as alleged in the present complaint, are that the complainant working as Deputy Manager in State Bank of India, was sanctioned Leave Fare Concession (LFC), by the bank w.e.f. 12.06.2019 to 29.06.2019 and accordingly, the complainant had planned to visit Calgary(Canada) with the domestic tour from New Delhi to Chennai. The complainant visited the OP No.1 and got booked four air tickets for himself and his family members from New Delhi to Calgary(Canada) and Calgary(Canada) to New Delhi and from New Delhi to Chennai and Chennai to New Delhi. A sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid to the OP No.1 on account of air tickets through cheque no.839633 dated 25.05.2019, drawn on State Bank of India, Sector-12, Chandigarh. The OP no.1 had provided four international tickets of OP No.2 and the air journey was scheduled on 17.06.2019 at 10.00A.M. from New Delhi and was to arrive at London at 03:20PM on 17.06.2019 and departure of the connecting flight from London  to Calgary(Canada) was  at 06:20 PM on 17.06.2019, thus, the total time of air travel was, approximately, 21:30 hours, which includes the layover of 03 hours at Heathrow Airport (London). Similarly, the return of the complainant and his family members was on 25.06.2019 from Calgary(Canada) and the arrival of the complainant in India was fixed for 27.06.2019 as per the schedule. Immediately, after the arrival of the complainant and his family members in India, their next connecting flight from New Delhi to Chennai was fixed for 28.06.2019 at 08:25 AM and return of the complainant from Chennai was fixed on 29.06.2019 at 08:30AM, which was to arrive at New Delhi on the very same day at 11:25AM. Thus, both the international and the domestic tickets were interlinked with each other and availed by the complainant and the said schedule was the most suitable option available to the complainant. It is stated that the complainant had purchased Canadian $4500 from Wall Street Finance Limited by paying an amount of Rs.3,07,312/- vide Sr.No.24388/PS/1143 and 24388/PS/1311 dated 04.06.2019. The complainant had also purchased T-sim for his international Trip by paying an amount of Rs.1,989/- vide bill no.9268 dated 05.06.2019. The complainant had also made the payment of Rs.50,000/- to OP No.1, in cash, qua Hotel along with their charges for their stay in Chennai and Pondicherry. It is averred that, on 11.06.2019, suddenly, a call was received by complainant from OP No.1 informing that the air journey was re-scheduled by OP No.2 with layover of 24 hours at Heathrow Airport  at London. It is averred that, on enquiry, from the helpline of OP No.2 on 11.06.2019, it was learnt that OP No.2 had already intimated the OP No.1 on 31.05.2019 qua the changes in the air flights and option was sought to choose the suitable trip up to 05.06.2019. It is stated that the OP no.1, thereafter, was informed vide email on 11.06.2019 that layover of 24 hours of Heathrow Airport at London was not suitable to him and his family members. The complainant also requested the OP No.1 to forward him the email as received by it from OP no.2 qua the rescheduling of the air tickets. It is averred that the air tickets had already been cancelled by OP No.2 on 05.06.2019 due to in-action and lapses on the part of the OP No.1. It is stated that the OP no.1, thereafter, offered alternative air route through China Southern airlines from 19.06.2019 to 02.07.2019 with layover at two places, which were not suitable to the complainant and his family members. Thereafter, the complainant was offered another alternative with a layover of 19 hours at Heathrow Airport and the air travel was preponed on 16.06.2019 in place of 17.06.2019. Since the alternative air journey as offered was not suitable, so the same was declined by the complainant. It is averred that the OP No.1 instead of resolving the grievances of the complainant had started to threaten him with dire consequences. It is stated that a sum of Rs.4,76,000/- was refunded, out of Rs.5,00,000/- and the same was accepted by the complainant under protest. It is stated that the OPs had made the deductions of Rs.24,000/- without any justification and has also failed to make the payment of Rs.50,000/-, which was paid by him in cash. It is stated that the Canadian 4500 dollar were returned on 04.07.2019 for a sum of Rs.3,04,210/- against the paid amount of Rs.3,07,312/-. It is stated that one email was received from OP No.2 on 23.07.2019, wherein it had refused its liability mentioning that flight was rescheduled because of closure of Pakistan Airspace. It is stated that OP no.1 was under legal obligation to inform all concerned parties about the alternation in the air journey. It is stated that the OP No.1 inspite of getting the information of rescheduling of the air tickets on 31.05.2019 from OP no.2, had never bothered to inform the complainant till 10.06.2019 and when OP no.1 informed the complainant firstly, about the rescheduling of the plan, by that time, the booked air tickets had already been cancelled by OP No.2. Thus, the act and conduct on the part of OP No.1 as well as OP no.2 shows that they had been deficient in rendering services to the complainant and also indulged in highly unfair trade practice. Due to the act and conduct on the part of the OPs, the complainant has suffered great mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Upon notice, the OP No.1 has appeared through its counsel and filed written statement contesting the complaint by raising preliminary objections. It is submitted that air flight was rescheduled by British Airways i.e. OP no.2 on account of air space restrictions and accordingly, the complainant was given the option of alternative air journey with stay at hotel in London. It is submitted that the OP No.1 had given the new schedule to the complainant much before the date of travel i.e. 17.06.2019 and had offered new travel plan on 12.06.2019 but the same was not accepted by the complainant. There were no changes qua the date of arrival at Calgary. Even the difference of the cost travel was offered by OP No.1 to the complainant and OP No.1 was ready to bear the extra travel expenses but the complainant had chosen not to travel any alternative air travel and was bent upon to travel by the same plan. It is submitted that the e-tickets were booked and issued much before 25.05.2019, without receiving any payment/ demand from the complainant. It is submitted that after confirmation of the tickets, Aditya Khurana son of the complainant had up dated his mobile number with the British airspace regarding the schedule or reschedule of the flights through email on 25.05.2021 itself and thus, all changes were directly in the knowledge of the complainant through his son from the desk of British Airways Customer Care. It is submitted that the British Airways had informed the Riya travels, through which, the tickets of the complainant were booked. It is submitted that all the circumstances were beyond the control of the OP No.2 due to air space problem. It is denied that any amount of Rs.50,000/- was ever paid by the complainant in cash to OP No.1. It is stated that the complainant had already taken the refund from OP No.1 prior to the date, when the same was actually received from OP No.2. It is submitted that amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid by the complainant much after the confirmation of the tickets, which were booked by OP No.2 without  charging any amount from him. It is stated that the purchase of t-sim or pre booking of motels at different cities in Calgary by the complainant were not in the notice of the OP No.1. The OP no.1 had already arranged the booking of the hotel at Chennai. It is submitted that the OP no.1 had never advised or instrumental in purchase of Canadian $4500 from Wall Street Finance Ltd. by the complainant. The complainant was already in the knowledge of the rescheduling of the original flight booked by him through British Airways Customer Care as he had updated his mobile on the site of the British Airways. It is submitted that tickets are booked and issued through GDS(Gallilio Software) which is used worldwide  to book the tickets. Therefore, it has been prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1 and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

                Upon notice, the OP No.2 has appeared through its counsel and filed written statement contesting the complaint by raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable due to non-joinder of three other passengers, apart from the complainant. On merits, it is stated that a change was required in the scheduled itinerary of the complainant, on account of closure of airspace, by Pakistan, which was a circumstance beyond the control of OP No.2. It is stated that all bookings for the complainant and his family members were made with OP No.2 through a travel agent, OP no.1. Hence, all communication in respect of the bookings of the tickets of the complainant with OP No.2 was made through OP No.1 and there was never any direct communication between OP No.2 and the complainant. It is stated that the bookings were made through a travel agent & as per procedure, upon closure of the airspace by Pakistan the OP No.2 had contacted the OP No.1 on 31.05.2019 and offered alternative flights clearly instructing it(OP no.1) to revert with the complainant’s preferred option by 05.06.2019, which the OP No.1 had failed to do. In the said circumstances, the bookings of the complainant were cancelled by OP No.2 and the entire refund of INR 448352, as was received by OP No.2 from OP No.1, was processed against the said tickets on 16.06.2019 by OP no.2 and credited into the account of OP No.1. Thus, in the circumstances of having received no response from either the complainant or his agent, OP No.1, the cancellation of bookings by OP No.2 was entirely justified and no deficiency in service can be imputed qua OP No.2. It is correct  that as per the bookings, the complainant and his family members were scheduled to fly on flight no.BA256 from New Delhi  to London, which was to arrive at London at 3:20 PM and were, thereafter, to take a connecting flight i.e. London-Calgary (Canada) being BA103, which was to depart from London at 6:20 PM. It is submitted that due to closure of air space of Pakistan, the flight from New Delhi to London was necessitated to operate on diverted route, increasing the flying time by almost 2 hours and thus, the complainant would not have been left with sufficient time to take the connecting flight to Calgary and therefore, several re-routed options were provided to OP No.1 by OP No.2 qua which, OP no.1 had failed to revert to OP no.2 with the option suitable to the complainant. It is stated that the purchase of Canadian Dollars by the complainant on 04.06.2019 is of no consequences in so far as OP No.2 is concerned as OP no.2 had already provided OP No.1 with rerouting options and it was for the complainant to remain in touch with OP no.1 and revert to OP No.2 on his chosen option, which he failed to do. It is submitted that OP No.2 was never contacted by the complainant prior to the cancellation of the tickets.  It is submitted that the OP No.2 could only have contacted the person, whose contact details were updated at the time of the booking. As the said contact details were that of OP No.1 i.e. the travel agent, OP No.2 made all communications with OP No.1. It is stated that OP No.1 had failed to revert with a response on the alternative options as offered by OP No.2 and hence, refund was processed. Accordingly, the entire amount of Rs.4,48,352/-, which was received by OP No.2 from OP No.1 was refunded to OP no.1, on 16.06.2019. It is denied that OP No.2 was, in any manner liable to inform the complainant directly, particularly in view of the fact that the contact details updated in the booking were that of the travel agent i.e. OP No.1. It is stated that the travel tickets can be purchased directly from OP No.2 from the website of OP No.2, which the complainant was free to do, in which case, all communications would have been sent to the complainant directly. It is the options for passengers to either book their tickets directly with the airline or through a travel agent, in case, passengers do not have the time or the resources to make their bookings directly. It is stated that the OP No.2, in order to facilitate the travel of the complainant, offered alternative flight options to the complainant through OP No.1 giving OP No.1 a time of 120hours to respond with the options suitable to the complainant. As no response was received from OP No.1 informing OP No.2 about the option chosen by the complainant, the OP No.2 had no alternative but to cancel the flight of the complainant. It is stated that pursuant to the cancellation, a full refund of Rs.4,48,352/- was processed by OP No.2 in favour of  OP no.1. In the said circumstances, it is denied that the OP No.2 is liable to the complainant in any manner whatsoever. Therefore, it has been prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2 and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

3.             Replication to the written statements of the OPs No.1 & 2 was filed by the complainant reiterating the contents of the complaint while controverting the contentions of the OPs.

4.             The learned counsel for complainant has tendered the affidavit as Annexure C/A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-23 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP No.1 has tendered the affidavit Annexure R1/A alongwith documents Annexure R1/1 to R-1/7 and closed the evidence. The ld. counsel for the OP No.2 has tendered the affidavit Annexure R2/A alongwith documents Annexure R2/1 and closed the evidence.

5.             We have heard learned counsels for the parties, considered the written arguments filed by learned counsel for the complainant, OP No. 1 as well as OP No.2 and gone through the record minutely and carefully.

6.             Admittedly, the complainant and his family members were scheduled to fly on 17.06.2019 vide flight no.BA 256, belonging to OP No.2, from New Delhi to London, utilizing the air space of Pakistan, which was to arrive at London at 3:20PM, and were, thereafter, to take a connecting flight No.BA 103 of OP No.2 from London to Calgary (Canada), which was to depart from London at 6:20PM on 17.06.2019. As per the said itinerary, the complainant had a comfortable three hours time to change flights at London. Undisputedly, the aforementioned schedule of air journey was necessitated to be re-scheduled by the OP No.2 due to extension of Ban by Pakistan, on 29.05.2019 on the use of its air space w.e.f. 30.05.2019 to 15.06.2019.

7.             The grievances of the complainant are that he was neither informed by OP no.1 i.e. the travel agent nor by the OP no.2 i.e. Airline about the option as given by OP No.2 about the re-scheduling of the air journey between 31.05.2019 to 05.06.2019.

8.   During arguments, the learned counsel on behalf of the complainant reiterating the averments as made in the complaint as also in the affidavit(Annexure C-A) of the complainant, contended that the complainant was prevented from exercising his option as offered by OP No.2 qua the re-scheduling of the air journey between 31.05.2019 to 05.06.2019. Refuting the contentions of OP No.1 qua the up-dation of contact details by son of the complainant, namely, Aditya Khurana, on the desk of British airways i.e. OP No.2, the learned counsel asserted that the complainant’s son had never replaced the contact details of OP no.1 on the site of British Airways i.e. OP No.2. It is further contended that the air space of Pakistan was closed even in the month of May 2019, when the booking in question was made by the complainant by paying an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. Concluding arguments, the learned counsel has prayed for acceptance of the complaint by granting the relief as claimed for in the complaint.

9.     The learned counsel on behalf of the OP No.1 reiterating the averments as made in the written statement as also in affidavit (Annexure R-1/A) contended that the complainant was fully aware qua the changes in the schedule of air journey as his son, namely, Aditya Khurana had up-dated his contact details on the website of British Airways i.e. OP No.2 and thus, no lapse or deficiency is attributable towards OP No.1. It is contended that several alternative air routes were proposed to the complainant but the same were not acceptable to him; as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed being frivolous, baseless and meritless.

10.   The learned counsel on behalf of the OP no.2, reiterating the averments as made in the written statement as also in the affidavit (Annexure R-2/A) has contended that the OP No.2 had duly informed the OP No.1 on 31.05.2019 asking it to seek the option of the complainant qua the rescheduling of the air journey up to 05.06.2019. It is contended that no response was received from OP no.1 and accordingly, the air journey of the complainant, which was scheduled for 17.06.2019 from New Delhi to Calgary via London, was cancelled and an amount of Rs.4,48,352/- as received qua air fare, was refunded in the account of OP No.1 and thus, the learned counsel has prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP No.2 being frivolous and meritless.

11.  Having given the thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the learned counsels for the parties, it is found that the complainant was neither informed by OP no.1 i.e. the travel agent nor by the OP no.2 i.e. Airline(British Airways) about the option as given by OP No.2 between 31.05.2019 to 05.06.2019 qua the re-scheduling of the air journey. The contention of the OP No.1 that the complainant was already aware about the re-scheduling option as given by OP No.2 has no merits in it as no such documentary evidence, much less adequate and credible, has been adduced on record to prove that its contact details were replaced with those of complainant’s son on the website of British Airways(OP No.2). Further, the contention of OP No.1 qua the fact that the complainant was already aware about  the changes in the schedule of the air journey stands negated as the complainant had been found purchasing  the $4500 Canadian dollar on 04.06.2019 and a T-sim on 05.06.2019 by paying a sum of Rs.1,989/-. In case, the complainant is presumed to have the knowledge of the re-scheduling of the Air journey as alleged by OP No.1, then in that event, the complainant would not have purchased the Canadian dollar as well as T-sim on 04.06.2019 and 05.06.2019 respectively. Further, the reliance placed by OP No.1, upon Annexure R-1/1, in support of its contentions qua the replacement of its contact number with those of son of complainant is of no help to its case.

12.  Pertinently, the OP no.2 in its written statement as well as Affidavit(Annexure R-2/A) has specifically and categorically asserted that it had informed the OP No.1 i.e. the travel agent about the rescheduling option of air journey in question, which has not been denied by OP No.1.

13.  Moreover, the OP No.1 being a travel agent and engaged in tour/travel related services etc. cannot be supposed to be unaware about the decision of the Pakistan qua extension of the ban w.e.f. 31.05.2019 to 15.06.2019 for the use of its Air space. Thus, the OP no.1 cannot claim any kind of exoneration in any manner from its basic duty to inform the consumer i.e. the complainant qua the re-scheduling of the air journey in question. We have no hesitation to mention here that the whole planning of the complainant to spend the period in Canada with his family members, vide the facility of Leave Fare Concession(LFC), which was sanctioned by his employer w.e.f. 12.06.2019 to 29.06.2019(Annexure C-1(colly)), had got spoiled due to the in-action, lapses and deficiencies on the  part of OP No.1.

14. Coming to the liability of OP no.2 in the matter, we find its sole defence is that it had duly conveyed the OP No.1 i.e. the travel agent, through whom the complainant had got made the air booking in question, about the re-scheduling of the air journey in question.

                The contentions of the OP No.2 are also not tenable as in the event of extension of ban by Pakistan on use of its Air space w.e.f. 30.05.2016 to 15.06.2019, it was its basic duty to inform the complainant qua the re-scheduling of the Air journey in question. Moreover, as per provisions contained in Clause 3.3.1 of Civil Aviation Requirements Section 3- Air Transport issued from the Office of Director General of Civil Aviation, New Delhi on 06.08.2010(Rev.3, dated 27.02.2019), the OP No.2 i.e. Airlines was duty bound to inform the complainant qua the re-scheduling of the air journey in question. Therefore, the OP no.2 was also deficient while rendering services to the complainant.

15.  Now, adverting to the relief, it is found that the complainant had moved an application on 06.05.2019(Annexure C-1) seeking the facility of Leave Fare Concession(LFC) to his employer i.e. General Manager, SBI, Ropar, which was allowed w.e.f. 12.06.2019 till 29.06.2019 and accordingly, the complainant had planned to spend the said period with his family members in Calgary(Canada). As discussed above, the planned tour of complainant had got spoiled due to the inaction, lapses and deficiencies on the part of OP No.1 as well as OP no.2.  As such, the complainant is entitled to be duly compensated on this count.

16.   Admittedly, a sum of Rs.4,76,000/- out of total sum of Rs.5,00,000/- have already been refunded to the complainant. As such, a sum of Rs.24,000/- has remained balance towards OP No.1. Further, the complainant is also entitled to the amount of compensation as provided in Clause 3.3.2 of said Civil Aviation Requirements as the OP No.2 has been found violating the provisions of Clause 3.3.1 of said Civil Aviation Requirements. The prayer of the complainant qua refund of Rs.50,000/-, which was allegedly paid in cash to OP No.1 is declined for want of proof.

17. As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions against OPs No.1 & 2:-

1. The OP No.1 is directed to refund the balance amount of Rs.24,000/- along with interest @9% per annum(S.I.) to the complainant w.e.f. the date of filing of the complaint till its actual realization.
2. The OP No.2 is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- on account of violation of Clause no.3.3.1  of Civil Aviation Requirements.
3. The OP No.1 is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him.
4. The OP No.1 is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,500 to the complainant on account of litigation charges.

 

18.  The OPs No.1 & 2 shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, 2019 against the OPs No.1 & 2. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on: 14.07.2023

 

 

 

     Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav           Dr.Sushma Garg          Satpal

                  Member                        Member                         President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                             Satpal

                                            President