DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 7 of 13.1.2016
Decided on: 2.11.2016
Deepam Matta d/o Capt. Y.S.Matta, resident of 5 Ajit Nagar, Patiala D/o Capt. Y.S.Matta, Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner (Retd.)5-Ajit Nagar, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
- Virgin Atlantic, 314, 3rd Floor, Time Tower, Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon-122002.
- Via. Com Regd. & Corporate Office, Flight Raja Travels Pvt. Ltd. Magnolia, Block-B, Level-4, Manyata Embassy Business Park, Outer Ring Road, Nagwara, Bangalore-560045 Karnataka (India).
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Y.S.Matta, Authorized Representative
of the complainant.
Sh.Amit Gupta, Advocate, counsel for
Opposite Party No.1.
Sh. A. S. Bindra, Advocate, counsel for
Opposite Party No.2
ORDER
SMT. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Ms Deepam Matta has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.).
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 15th August, 2015, her brother namely Sh.Navandeep Singh Matta, booked a return ticket, in her name, at Patiala through internet from Landon-Delhi-London of Virgin Atlantic Air-Lines through Via.com. The payment was made from her brother’s ATM card at Patiala. Reference number for her London-Delhi flight was FMN1EZT4SET and Virgin Atlantic PNR was BMK06G. These were confirmed tickets. Her flight details included London-Delhi trip for 1st December,2015 at 21.50 flight and inward bound from Delhi-London trip was scheduled for 7th January, 2016, 2.00PM. She gave her e-mail I.D. as well as her brother’s cell number to the booking agency i.e. via.com. A week in advance of her flight i.e. on 22nd November,2015, she logged on to the Virgin Atlantic site to make her meal preferences, seat allocation and up-dating of her personal information. The site showed the date of journey as 1st December,2015. On 30th November, 2015 night, she again logged on to the Virgin site to do on-line check in, but she could not do it, as the system showed an error. On contacting the Virgin Atlantic agent, it was informed that her flight of 1st December,2015 was pre-poned to 30th November,2015. At this, she shocked and took aback, as she was not intimated by either of the O.Ps about the pre-poning of the flight either by e-mail or through SMS or by call. On 1st December, 2015, she made several calls to the O.Ps to sort out the issue and to put her on the next flight to Delhi but none of the O.Ps. provided her with any substantial help. She was made to pay a cost of Rs.42,959/- as a penalty cost and re-issuing cost for a new ticket for the 2nd December,2015 flight. The via reference No.FMN1ID0OQDD and Virgin Atlantic PNR is BMK06G. On 9.12.2015, she also sent a notice to the O.Ps. claiming damages to the tune of Rs.10lac alongwith refund of extra money. On 14.12.2015, she received an e-mail from OP no.1, wherein it expressed extremely sorry on its part and blamed upon booking agent i.e. via.com for the hardship caused to her. On 17.12.2015, she got an e-mail from OP no.2, in which her confirmation of return journey schedule for 7.1.2016 from Delhi to London was mentioned. It also showed her London to Delhi flight schedule for 2.12.2015, which was never communicated to her. She also received a call from No.+9180678181 from OP no.2 asking her about the facts as to what had happened for her London-Delhi flight. No positive response was given by either of the O.Ps. She suffered from mental tension, agony and harassment. Thus, the Ops. have not only committed deficiency of service but also adopted unfair trade practice. It is therefore, prayed that complaint may kindly be accepted and O.Ps. be directed to pay compensation of Rs.Five Lac each, to refund Rs.42,959/- charged from her in a deceitful manner, to pay interest @ 12% per annum and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. On being put to notice, Ops appeared and filed their written version separately. In the written version filed on behalf of OP no.1, preliminary objections have been taken that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction in accordance with Section 11(2) of the Act, as the cause of action has arisen in Bangalore and that the representatives of the complainant are not duly authorized by the complainant and hence they have no locus-standi to contest the case on her behalf. On merits it is denied that Sh.Navandeep Singh Matta, booked the tickets. It is also denied that the tickets were booked from Patiala. It is submitted that the bank statement is insufficient to prove that the location of computer device was in Patiala from which the tickets were booked. It is further submitted that OP no.1 never had any contact number or e-mail ID of the complainant. It is denied that the complainant had ever logged on the website of OP no.1 on 22nd November,2015. It is denied that on 22.11.2015, the website showed the date of journey as 1st December, 2015. However, it is submitted that the website of OP NO.1 was duly updated just after the rescheduling of the flight from 1st December,2015 to 30th November,2015. It is alleged that the website of OP no.1 was working perfectly on the night of 30th November,2015 and none of the passengers complained about error on website. It is further submitted that OP no.1, like all other reputed Airlines, maintains customer care support on 24 hours basis and all calls are entertained with utmost importance, therefore, it is surprising as to why the complainant had to wait till morning just to make a call. It is submitted that when the booking is made through a travel agent, it is the responsibility of the Travel Agent to inform and to send the amended tickets to the passenger in the event of schedule change or cancellation of flight. It is further submitted that the travel agent of the complainant was duly informed on 20.8.2015 i.e. just after 5 days from the date of original booking, about the changed schedule of the flight i.e. from 1st December to 30th November,2015. No document has been placed to show that the complainant has ever inquired about any travel information from OP no.1 through any means of communication. All the documents submitted by the complainant have a bearing that OP no.2 was responsible to update the complainant about travel related information. It rendered its services properly and with due care. OP no.1 admitted the receipt of the notice but denied the contents of the notice. It is admitted that an e-mail was sent to the complainant on 14.12.2015 on behalf of OP no.1. It is submitted that OP no.1 expresses grief as a compassionate gesture on the suffering and hardship faced by its customer, nevertheless caused due to the negligent conduct of her travel agent, cannot amount to the admission of deficiency of service on the part of OP no.1. It is denied that OP no.2 is the agent of OP no.1.It is submitted that it is the complainant, who hired OP no.2 to book her ticket. It is alleged that the e-mail received by the complainant from OP no.2 on 17.12.2015, still contained wrong information viz. 1st December Flight instead of 30th November,2015, which clearly indicates that OP no.2 is negligent in its duty to communicate correct travelling information to the complainant. It is submitted that there is no deficiency of service on its part as the tickets were not booked directly and it never had any contact detail of the complainant with it. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
4. The OP no.2 filed written version taking preliminary objection that the complainant has no locus-standi to file the complaint as Navandeep Singh Matta booked the tickets and money was also paid from his account and said Navandeep Singh has not filed any complaint as he can be the aggrieved/competent person to file complaint for refund of his amount. On merits , it is stated that it is a travel agent and not the actual service provider and offers only web portal to the customers for booking tickets of their choice in accordance with the terms and conditions of the concerned Airlines. The complainant booked the tickets of Virgin Atlantic Airlines, thus the ultimate contract was between the complainant and the Airlines and not with it. The refund if any, has to be paid back by OP no.1 i.e. Virgin Atlantic Airlines. It is only an intermediary service provider and in no case be deemed to be a supplier of services and also it shall not be held responsible in case complainant incur any additional expenses for the losses beyond its control. The contract arrived at between the complainant and OP no.1, provided that it is not responsible to prove any updates on schedules, availability, cancellations and modifications to the service provides by the suppliers. Its role is limited only to facilitate booking of tickets and does not owe any liability, if, any particular airlines changes its flight schedule. As and when complainant contacted it, all necessary help was provided to her. After denouncing all other averments made in the complaint, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. In support of the case, the authorized representative of the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA reply to the written version of OP no.1 in the form of affidavit of authorized signatory of the complainant, Ex.CB reply to the written version of OP no.2 in the form of affidavit of authorized signatory of the complainant, Ex.C1 copy of booking details, Ex.C2 copy of extract of pass book, Ex.C3 copies of phone details, Ex.C4 copy of booking confirmation details, Ex.C5 copy of notice,Ex.C6 copy of Detailed Track Events for EP226840935IN Ex.C7 copy of detailed track event for EP226840949IN, Ex.C8 copy of response from Virgin Atlantic,Ex.C9 copy of booking information details, Ex.C10 telephone detail and closed the evidence.
On the other hand, the O.Ps, tendered in evidence Ex.OPA reply by way of affidavit of Sh.Pavitar Raheja, authorized agent/person. Representative/signatory of the company, Ex.OPB, sworn affidavit of Vijay Kumar, Ex.OP1 copy of letter, Ex.OP2 copy of courier receipt, Ex.OP3 copy of postal receipt, Ex.OP4 copy of authority letter,Ex.OP5 copy of Notarial certificate, Ex.OP6 copy of document,,Ex.OP7 copy of power of attorney,Ex.OP8 copy of minutes of metting,Ex.OP9 copy of schedule changes and cancellations and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the authorized representative of the complainant, learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
7. At the outset, the learned counsel for OP No.1 raised an objection that this Hon’ble Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute involved in the present complaint case and prayed that complaint be dismissed solely on this ground. The learned counsel for OP no.2 argued that even he is of the view that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present case and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs. To this effect, the representative of the complainant submitted that tickets in question were booked on-line at Patiala and the payment of the same has also been made at Patiala only. Therefore, this Forum has the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.
From the perusal of copy of booking confirmation details, Ex.C1, it is apparent that the booking for ticket in question was made on-line. From the perusal of copy of statement of account, Ex.C2, it is apparent that the amount of Rs.46,863/-, for the purpose of booking of tickets in question, was withdrawn from the account of brother of the complainant, maintained with H.D.F.C. Bank, Patiala. In this way, part of cause of action has arisen within the territory of District Patiala and this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. Our view is supported by the order passed by our own Hon’ble State Commission, in the case of Rajinder Pasricha Vs. Garwal Mandal, decided on 13.4.2014, wherein, the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab by making reference of order passed by Hon’ble National commission, in the case of Melaine Das Vs. Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anrs. 1(2014)CPJ 302(NC), has held that since the complainant has got booked two AC rooms at Haridwar on-line through credit card at Ludhiana, certainly part of cause of action has arisen at Patiala. We do not agree with the finding so recorded by the Distt. Forum that the Distt. Forum, Ludhiana does not have the jurisdiction. Thus, this objection raised by the learned counsel for O.Ps no.1&2 is not sustainable, hence rejected.
8. The leaned counsel for OP no.1 has raised another objection that the representatives of the complainant are not duly authorized, hence they have no locus-standi to appear before this Forum. To this effect, the authorized representative of the complainant submitted that the complainant has duly authorized him being her father and Sh.Navandeep Singh, being her brother, to contest this case on her behalf.
From the perusal of authority letter, it is evident that the complainant has duly authorized her father Sh. Y.S.Matta and brother Sh.Navandeep Singh, to contest the case on her behalf before this Forum. Therefore, even this objection raised by OP no.1 is not tenable, hence rejected.
9. The learned counsel for OP no.2 has also raised an objection that complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint because the tickets in question were got booked by Sh.Navandeep Singh Matta, the brother of the complainant and the consideration amount was also paid by him,only. The representative of the complainant submitted that since the return tickets were booked for the complainant to travel from London-Delhi-London, therefore, she being beneficiary is a ‘consumer’ as per Section 2(1)(d) of the Act ,and has rightly filed the present complaint against the O.Ps and the objection raised by the learned counsel for O.P. no.2 may not be considered.
Since the booking of the tickets has been made in the name of the complainant, thus, she is a ‘consumer’ as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. As such, the objection raised by the learned counsel for OP no.1 is baseless.
10. On merits, the representative of the complainant has submitted that the complainant is residing at London and she had to attend a meeting with her Supervisor in India. For the said purpose, on 15.8.2015, the brother of the complainant namely Sh.Navandeep Singh, had booked a return ticket for her. He booked a ticket for complainant for a flight for 1st of December,2015 from London-Delhi at 21:50 and a ticket for a flight from Delhi to London for 7th January, 2016 2:00PM.The complainant gave her e-mail ID as well as her brother Cell Number to O.P. No. 2 for further correspondence and communication. On 22nd November,2015, she logged on the site of O.P. no.1 to confirm the status of the flight. The date of journey from London to Delhi was mentioned as 1st December, 2015. She again on 30 November,2015 logged on to the site of OP no.1 for checking the flight status but she could not do so as the system showed an error. She also called the customer care support of O.P.no.1 but her call was not attended to and she left with no other alternative but to wait till morning. On 1st December,2015, she contacted the Vergin Atlantic agent, who told her that the flight which has to take off on 1st December, 2015 was preponed for 30st November,2015. She was shocked to know, because she never received any information regarding preponment of flight either from O.P. no.1 or from O.P. no.2 which she was to board on 1st December,2015. On 1st December,2015, she made several calls to both the O.Ps for putting her on the next flight but they never respond and she left with no alternative except to purchase a fresh ticket for 2nd December,2015 to reach Delhi, by paying an amount of Rs.42,959/-, copy of the same being Ex.C4. He further submitted that it was the bounded duty of the O.ps to intimate the customer about any change in the schedule of flights but the O.Ps. did not inform the complainant about the change in the schedule of flight. Due to the said act of the O.ps., complainant has gone through a lot of mental agony and physical harassment and has suffered a huge financial loss therefore, they be directed to compensate her as prayed for in the complaint.
11. The learned counsel for OP no.1 submitted that on 20.8.2015 i.e.5 days, from the date of booking of the tickets of the complainant, it informed O.P no.2, who is the agent of the complainant, about re-scheduling of the flight dated 1.12.2015 to 30.11.2015. It was the responsibility of O.P no.2 to inform and send fresh tickets to the complainant regarding the re-scheduling of the flight. Even otherwise the complainant has always communicated with OP no.2 only and not with it. The OP no.1 was not having any contact number or e-mail ID of the complainant or her brother and was unable to inform them. Thus, O.P. No.2 could have informed the complainant about the preponment of the flight dated 1st December, 2015 from London to Delhi. Even otherwise, the status of re-scheduled flight was immediately up-dated on its web site, as such it cannot be held responsible and the complaint filed against It, may be dismissed.
12. The learned counsel for O.P. no.2 vehemently argued that after receiving the request for booking of the ticket and on payment of the consideration amount, it issued the confirmed ticket in the name of the complainant. If the flight is re-scheduled, then it is the responsibility of OP no.1 to inform the complainant and it cannot be held responsible. As such the complaint filed against it may be dismissed.
13. Admittedly, a confirmed ticket was issued by the O.P. no.1 in the name of the complainant to fly from London to Delhi for 1st of December,2015, 9.50P.M., as is evident from the copy of via booking confirmation detail, Ex.C1.It is also admitted fact that the flight which was to take off on 1st December,2015, was preponed to 30.11.2015. The stand of OP no.1 is that it was not having the e-mail ID/ phone number, either of the complainant or her brother, and as such, it was unable to inform them regarding change in the schedule of the flight. Information regarding preponment of the flight was duly given to the O.P.No.2 and it was its responsibility to inform the complainant about the change in the schedule of the flight. To corroborate this fact, the O.P. No.1 has not placed on record any document vide which it intimated to OP no.2 regarding pre-ponment of the flight on 30.11.2015,which was to take off on 1st December,2015. Even, this contention of the OP no.1 that it was not in possession of the e-mail ID or any contact number of the complainant or her brother is also not believable because it is of a common knowledge that while booking the ticket on-line, the passenger has to fill up booking form which contains information regarding e-mail and mobile number of the person concerned. Thus, this stand of O.P. No.1 is baseless. It may be stated that O.P. No.1 being carrier was duty bound to inform the complainant about the change in the schedule of the flight. From the record, it is borne out that it had not only failed to inform the complainant about the change in the schedule of the flight but also did not bother to allow her to board next flight. Taking these facts into consideration, we do not hesitate to conclude that O.P. no.1 is deficiency in providing services to the complainant. So far as deficiency of service on the part of O.P no.2 is concerned, it may be stated that the O.P. No.2 is doing the business of booking of the air tickets of various airlines. Thus, it is its duty to be in touch with the said airlines to seek information regarding any change in the schedule of the flights and accordingly inform its customers. In the present case, it failed to inform the complainant regarding change in the schedule of the flight and it is also deficient in providing services to the complainant. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that O.Ps No.1&2 are liable to refund the amount of the ticket which was not availed of by the complainant because of reason that they failed to inform her regarding preponment of the flight and also liable to refund a sum of Rs.42,959/-, i.e. the cost of the ticket, which she has to purchase to travel from London to Delhi on 2.12.2015. In addition to that they are also liable to compensate the complainant on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by her alongwith costs of litigation.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint against the O.Ps and direct them in the following manner:
- To refund the amount of the ticket, which the complainant could not availed of for 1st December, 2015 i.e. from London to Delhi.
- To refund the amount of Rs. 42,959/-i.e. the price of the ticket, which the complainant purchased to travel from London to Delhi on 2.12.2015,
- To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation,
- To pay Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses
The O.Ps are further directed to comply the order jointly and severally, within a period of 45 days from the receipt of the certified copy of the order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
DATED:2.11.2016
