M/s Gulati Travel Services, through its proprietor Bharat Gulati s/o Sh. Gulzari Lal Gulati, aged 40 years, SCO No.42-44, Sector 17-A (near Canadian High Commission), Chandigarh.

……Appellant/OP-3

V e r s u s

1.            Sh. Varun Utreja S/o Madan Lal Utreja R/o House No.3291, Sector 46-C, Chandigarh.

2.           Kingfisher, Kingfisher house, Western Express Highway, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai through its Chairman /Managing Director.

3.           The Chairman/Managing Director, Kingfisher, Kingfisher House, Western Express Highway Vile Parle (E), Mumbai.

              ....Respondents

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:    JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                        S.  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by:  Sh. N.C. Kinra, Adv. for the appellant.

PER  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER

                        This appeal filed by OP No.3 is directed against the order dated 28.10.2011, rendered by the ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which it allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent No.1 and directed the appellant/OP-3 to refund to the complainant the actual amount of fare charged from Chandigarh to Delhi alongwith Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation within thirty days, failing which it was to pay the same, except litigation costs, with interest @ 18% per annum.

2.                             The facts, in brief, are that the complainant, who got married on 28.9.2009, had planned a seven day honeymoon tour to Singapore from 30.9.2009 to 6.10.2009 and had accordingly made booking for hotel and star cruise well in advance. He had also booked an air ticket of Singapore Airlines on Flight No. SQ 407 from Delhi to Singapore having scheduled departure at 11:10 PM on 30.9.2009 from IGI Airport, New Delhi.  For his travel from Chandigarh to Delhi he had got booked two confirmed tickets of the airline of OP-1&2, scheduled to depart at 5:35 PM on 30.09.2009, through OP-3 by paying an amount of Rs.5,208/-.  However, when he along with his wife reached the Chandigarh Airport to board the said flight for Delhi, he was surprised to know that the same was cancelled and there was no flight of OP-1&2 departing on the scheduled time.  He had to arrange a special vehicle alongwith driver and after shelling as much as Rs.9000/- could barely reach Delhi to catch the flight departing for Singapore. He alleged that the OPs were deficient in rendering proper services as they failed to inform him about the said change in schedule of the Chandigarh – Delhi flight, even though all his personal information was available with them.  Feeling aggrieved, he issued a legal notice on 20.5.2010 to the OPs, but to no avail.  When the grievance of the complainant was not settled this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed.

3.                             In their joint written reply OPs 1 & 2 at the outset took a preliminary objection that there was no entity by the name of “Kingfisher” and that OP-3 was not an authorized agent of Kingfisher Airlines Ltd.  On merits it was admitted that the flight No. IT-605 was grounded/cancelled due to operational reasons but the information about the same could not be passed on to him as the mobile No. provided by him or the person who booked the ticket for him was out of reach as per information collected by the Call Centre of the OPs. However, it was stated that the complainant was also responsible for contributory negligence by not providing the correct contact details and again by not confirming the status of the flight timings at least 24 hours before the scheduled time of departure.  It was denied that the ticket was issued after knowing that the said sector was not operative. The hiring of taxi and payment for the same by the complainant was also denied.  It was submitted that even the amount of both the tickets i.e. 4,358/- was refunded through the point of purchase i.e. the actual booking agency – Riya Travel & Tours Pvt. Ltd.  Remaining averments were denied being wrong.  Pleading that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

4.                              In its written reply OP-3 stated that as per the rules and regulations of OP-1, the flight timings were subject to change, without prior notice and the customer was required to re-check the same before departure. It was stated that there was no fault on its part as it was working as an agent of OPs 1 & 2.  Remaining averments were denied, being wrong.  It was denied that the complainant was entitled to any compensation.  Pleading that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-3 also prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

5.                             After hearing the ld. Counsel for the parties and on going through the evidence on record, the ld. District Forum allowed the complaint, as stated above.

6.                             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/OP-3.

7.                             We have heard arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant/OP-3, and have gone through the evidence on record of the case carefully, on the point as to whether the appeal should be admitted for regular hearing or not.

8.                             The appellant has admitted in para 1 and para 3 (iii) of the memorandum of appeal that he is the sub-agent/authorized person of Riya Travel  and Tour (India) Pvt. Ltd. and he had booked the ticket on the internet for the complainant. This fact was admitted by the appellant in para No.5 of the reply filed by it before the learned District Forum, that the ticket was booked by it. Annexure C-4 is the ticket on which the complainant had spent Rs.5208/- The agency is mentioned as Gulati Travels Services i.e. the appellant/OP-3. It is also admitted by the appellant/OP-3 that he did not inform the complainant about the cancellation of the flight. According to him it was the duty either of OP Nos.1 & 2 to inform the passenger or of the complainant himself to confirm on the toll free number about the flight. The contention of OP Nos. 1 & 2 in their written reply is that they made efforts to inform about the cancellation on the mobile number of the contact person as recorded in the PNR history (which was Mr. Navneet Gulati) but the said contact number was not reachable. It shows that the appellant has mentioned their own contact number instead of mentioning that of the complainant because admittedly Navneet Gulati is not the complainant. Annexure-2 is the PNR details showing that the number of Navneet Gulati mentioned in the PNR was not reachable and therefore, OP Nos.1 & 2 were unable to inform about the cancellation of the flight. Giving a wrong mobile number was primarily a deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.

9.                             Annexure-III is the letter from Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. showing that the flight had been cancelled. It is mentioned therein that all concerned were to be informed. The purpose of informing all concerned was that the person booking the ticket should further inform his client about the cancellation. It was therefore, necessary for appellant/OP-3 to inform the complainant and admittedly he did not inform him. The reasons given by the appellant/OP-3 for not informing the complainant, is that the complainant himself should have contacted at the toll free number or the OP Nos.1 & 2 should have directly informed the complainant, are not convincing. Whether the complainant confirms on toll free number or OP Nos.1 & 2 informs him about the cancellation even then it was the duty of the appellant/OP-3 to inform the complainant about the cancellation at his own, which the appellant/OP-3 failed to do. The appellant is therefore, not discharged of his obligation simply because the complainant did not confirm on the toll free number.

10.                         It is also argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant/OP-3 that Riya Travel and Tour (India) Pvt. Ltd. was agent of OP No.1 & 2 and the appellant was their sub-agent, that the complaint cannot succeed without impleading the said firm as a party. The learned District Forum did not agree with this contention and rightly so. There is no document produced by the complainant about the said relationship and secondly the complainant had no privity of contract with the said firm because admittedly the booking of the tickets for him was made by the appellant/OP-3.  Riya Travel and Tour (India) Pvt. Ltd. was, therefore, not a necessary party in this case.

11.                           The contention of complainant is that when they reached the Airport and found that the flight had already been cancelled, which caused him and his wife great mental agony and she was in grip of fear. They had to take a taxi for reaching Delhi, which further caused them inconvenience and tension. It was alleged that it was with great efforts that they were able to get the flight for Singapore on schedule. For the expenses incurred on the taxi and for suffering the inconvenience and mental tension the District Forum allowed only a meager amount of Rs.10,000/-, which in our opinion is not on the higher side. As regards the refund of the fare, the case of OP Nos. 1&2 is that they have already sent back the amount to their agent. The complainant would be, therefore, entitled to refund of the said amount because he has not availed the service of the OP Nos. 1&2.

12.                         In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the contentions raised by the appellant/OP-3. The order passed by the District Forum is perfectly legal and valid and does not call for any interference. There is no merit in this appeal and therefore, it cannot be admitted for regular hearing. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine.

                        Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

14^th December, 2011

sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

mp