Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 665
Instituted on : 29.11.2022.
Decided on : 18.09.2023
- Bindu Kadyan age 26 years, w/o Divyam Panghal s/o Rajesh Kumar Panghal, R/o H.No.1, Opp.Canara Bank, VPO Maina, Rohtak 124021.
- Divyam Panghal age 28 years, s/o Rajesh Kumar Panghal, R/o H.No.1, Opp.Canara Bank, VPO Maina, Rohtak 124021.
-
Vs.
- VietJet Air, New Delhi Office (GSA), Bird Travels Pvt. Ltd., @ M5A-2nd floor, Middle Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110055, through its Manager/authorized representative.
- Cleartrip Pvt. Ltd., 9th Floor, Tower A, Embassy Tech. Village, Devarabeesanahalli, Outer Ring Road, Bangalore-560103 through its Manager/authorized representative.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR.TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Nishant Sikri, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Vijay Pal Gehlot, Advocate for the opposite party No.2.
Opposite party No.1 exparte.
ORDER
TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainants are that they booked their tickets from the reputed online booking merchant Cleartrip (opposite party No.2) worth Rs.29767/-(Delhi-Bali 11.11.2022) and Rs.31652/- (Bali-Delhi 19.11.2022). The online platform of opposite party No.2 was the official booking partner and merchant of the airline(opposite party No.1). When the complainants reached the airport, they were informed at the check-in counter of OP No.1 that they need to pay for their bag for check-in as their check-in luggage is not free. The complainants were forced to pay Rs.2550/- for their luggage to be checked into the flight whereas at the time of booking, it was assured that it was free. The flight was also mismanaged with queues and the service was not up to the mark and the complainants as well as most fellow passengers were left disappointed by this uncomfortable journey. Finally, when the complainants reached the Bali airport on 12.11.2022, they were shocked to see that their luggage had been broken and the wheel of the trolley bag had been completely ripped apart from it and there were cracks in the body of the trolley as well. The complainant promptly lodged a complaint with the Airlines as well as the Airport authorities. The authorities assured the complainant that they will look into the matter but nothing has happened till date. The trolley set which was damaged was a new bought set worth Rs.27553/-. Lateron when on 19.11.2022 the complainants boarded the plain from Bali to Hanoi and then from Hanoi to New Delhi, the complainants again faced several issues. First of all, complainants had booked their meals for both the flights and they were not served their meals on the first Bali to Hanoi flight. They had already paid for this service which was not provided. The second flight was suddenly preponed by one and half hours due to which the complainant had to rebook their cab and were forced to bear the cost of the cab(Rs.3000-4000) twice and also they could barely make it to the airport at the very last hour and almost missed their flight. The same was abruptly preponed from 19:10 to 17:40. The complainant also had to rebook their cabs from Delhi airport to their Rohtak home which led to an additional charge of Rs.2000/- and there was mismanagement all around. There was utter chaos throughout the flight and there was even a sense of unsafety amongst all the passengers. The airlines officials could not manage the check-in-process or the seat allocation or the mid-air safe travel properly. After that when the complainants reached new Delhi Airport on 20.11.2022, they were shocked to see that this time luggage in the name of complainant no.2 had been completely destroyed with two wheels completely ripped apart and one wheel broken. There were cracks on the whole body which is clearly visible in pictures. Hence it is clearly proved beyond any reasonable doubt that indeed both the trolley bags were broken in these two flights only. Complainants wrote several emails and tried calling the customer care of both the opposite parties but their complaints and requests fell on deaf ears. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the incorrectly charged luggage fees worth Rs.2550/-, invoice amount of the broken luggage trolleys i.e. Rs.27553/-, amount of flights of Rs.61419/-, taxi rebooking amount of Rs.6000/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. and also to pay Rs.200000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.100000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 did not appear despite service of notice which was confirmed through track report submitted by the counsel for the complainant. As such, opposite party no.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 05.01.2023 of this Commission. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that the complainant is aggrieved due to alleged mismanagement caused by the independent Airlines Company i.e. opposite party No.1. It is further submitted that opposite party No.2 is mere an intermediary and does not have any access to the luggage management system of Independent Airlines company including the charges imposed thereof. Complainant was duly informed by the opposite party no.2 that the baggage details could not be fetched and the complainant was thereby requested to contact Independent Airlines/company i.e. opposite party No.1 only for the same. It is further submitted that the role of the opposite party no.2 being an intermediary is limited to providing a platform to both the parties i.e. complainant and opposite party no.1 for booking the flight tickets. The further operational procedure including meal and luggage management therein is handled by the independent Airlines Company solely in accordance to its own policy and procedures. In the present case also, the responsibility of luggage and meal management is vested with the opposite party no.1 only and not with the respondent no.2. The compensation offered by Independent Airlines company i.e. opposite party No.1 to the complainant makes it clearly evident that the opposite party No.1 has itself admitted the fault and hence she was being offered to be compensated for the same since offering compensation is a form of admission of guilt. Thus the complainant does not have any grievance at all against the opposite party No.2 in the present complaint. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW2/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C19 and has closed his evidence on dated 05.05.2023. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the OP No.2 made a statement that reply already filed on their behalf be read in evidence and closed his evidence on 07.08.2023.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case, as per version of the complainants, complainant no.1 & 2 were travelling to Indonesia for a trip and they booked the tickets from the opposite party no.2 who is merchant of opposite party No.1 worth Rs.29767/- from Delhi to Bali for 11.11.2022 and alongwith the return tickets from Bali to Delhi for 19.11.2022 worth Rs.31652/-. Opposite party No.2 is an official website and the booking partner and merchant of airlines i.e. opposite party no.1 who assured the complainants to provide best services including free meal and free luggage handling which is included in their tickets, and proved from the document Ex.C9. But when the complainants reached the airport they were informed at the check-in counter by opposite party No.1 that they need to pay for the luggage which is not free and were forced to pay Rs.2550/- for the same, which is proved from the document Ex.C2. And also during the flight they were not served the meal and when they reached the Bali Airport and checked the luggage, the luggage bag/trolley bag was found broken and the same is proved from Ex.C11 & Ex.C12. Moreover, lots of difficulties were faced not only by the complainants but the other passengers also, which is proved from Ex.C10. Ex.C10 shows that there was utter chaos throughout the flight and lots of deficiency in services took place and the customers had to pay separately for different services even after booking the tickets for whole expenses. While coming back from Bali to Hanoi then to Delhi, again some other several problems were faced by the complainants. They have to travel without meal and suddenly the flight was preponed by one and half hour and to reach to the airport on time, they had to book a taxi/cab separately and were compelled to pay cab charges, which caused extra burden upon them. Hence after perusal of the documents and going though the file carefully we have observed that lots of problems have been faced by the complainant while they were travelling up and down to India and all the contentions raised by the complainant stands proved as the opposite party No.1 has clearly admitted that there was mismanagement and deficiency in service on their part and they offered compensation to the complainants which is proved from Ex.C16(a) & Ex.C16(b) and Ex.C18. As far as the opposite party No.2 is concerned, they are the service provider and provide the platform to the airlines and offers the services to the customers. Moreover, it is observed that at the time of booking they provide lucrative offers to the passengers, which are not fulfilled by the airlines. But it is the duty of opposite party no.2 to investigate and provide authentic information to the customers regarding the booking of the airline tickets for which they are providing the services. Moreover it is the moral duty of the service provider not to cheat and not to misrepresent about the different facilities provided by the different airlines and they should check and keep the information about the different airlines or companies for which they are providing the services and must inform the customers while booking the tickets. So in that sense just being the service provider, they cannot escape from their liability of the different hardships faced by the customers/consumers who choose their site for the booking of different airlines. No doubt, major deficiency in service is on the part of opposite party no.1 in mismanagement and same has been clearly admitted by them and had offered compensation to the complainant, but offering of a small amount of compensation to the customers does not provide a solution to the customers. As in the present case the consumer has suffered lots of loss as his luggage trolley was damaged, they had to pay luggage charges which was free, they were not provided meals during the travelling which was included in the ticket and they had to pay extra taxi charges due to preponing of flight. In this regard, it is observed and expected that an international flight has the duty to keep their words and offers, which they provide at the time of booking of the tickets as the consumers pay for the same. As such, it was the duty of the opposite parties to arrange all the facilities which they have promised to provide but the same has not been provided by the opposite parties. Hence there is immense deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and opposite party No.1 and No.2 as well are liable to compensate the complainant.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.2550/- paid by the complainants on account of check-in luggage, to pay a sum of Rs.27553/- on account of trolley bag, to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- on account of cab charges i.e. total Rs.33103/- (Rupees thirty three thousand one hundred and three only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.29.11.2022 till its payment and also to pay Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation of account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties & harassment suffered by the complainant and also to pay Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. It is made clear that out of the alleged awarded amount, 80% amount shall be paid by the opposite party No.1 and remaining 20% amount shall be paid by the opposite party no.2. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
18.09.2023
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
.......................................
Vijender Singh, Member
