This consumer complaint has been filed u/s. 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 by the complainant against the O.P named above alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
The brief facts of the case, is that, the complainant is a businessman and he purchased one E-Ticket from the O.P No. 2 under booking reference No. 6H9S82 and the booking was confirmed for flight No. UK725 from Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi to Bagdogra Airport. The journey date was on 13/02/2018 for the complainant and his friend in economic class vide Ticket Nos. 2285923973397 and 2285923973398. The complainant and his friend went to Delhi and stayed there in the house of the complainant’s relative which is situated at distance of 200 K.M. from the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi and the complainant to return back to their destination by the said flight on 13/02/2018 which was scheduled to departure from Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, Terminal No. 3 at 13:55 Hours. Complainant and his friend reached at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi on the schedule date of journey and reported to the concern counter at 12:17 Hours but they were thunder stroke while he came to know that the flight already departed at 10:25 Hours from the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi to Bagdogra.
Complainant came to know from the employee of the concern Airlines that a message was duly given to the complainant’s registered mobile number and thereafter the complainant noticed that a message was given from the O.P No. 1 on 13/02/2018 at 7:23 A.M. stating inter-alia “Dear Vistara Customer, your flight UK725 from New Delhi to Bagdogra will depart from New Delhi, Terminal – 3 at 10:25 Hours check-in opens 2:5 Hours prior to departure at row - C and closes 45 minutes before departure. The boarding gate will close 15 minute before departure, we wish you a pleasant flight”.
Regarding re-schedule of departure of the said flight earlier 2:17 minute from the closer of the boarding gate without giving any sufficient time to board for which the complainant bound to return back to Barwala and thereafter, on 15/02/2018, the complainant return back to Bagdogra in a higher fairing another flight. The complainant sustained mental agony ad monetary loss due to whimsical acts of the O.P No. 1 as the O.P No. 1 did not render proper service towards the complainant which is deficiency in service. After that the complainant came before the Ld. Commission and claiming the amount of Rs. 99,940/- as fair at the return ticket plus interest thereon @ 18% per annum till realization and claiming of Rs. 75,000/- as compensation for mental agony and sufferings and also Rs. 15,000/- for cost of litigation.
It appears from the case record that O.P Nos. 1 and 2 appears and contest the case by filing written version. It also appears from the case record that O.P No. 2 though filed written version but he did not turn up later on nor he has filed evidence-on-affidavit and written argument. Hence, the case be proceeded ex-parte against the O.P No. 2 on 14/01/2020, Order No. 20. It is also noticeable from the case record that O.P No. 1 has submitted written argument on 24/01/2019 but after that he did not turn up before this Commission for oral argument of the case. To prove the case complainant has filed evidence-on-affidavit and written argument and some relevant documents. Complainant files one Xerox copy of E-Ticket booking status on 13/02/2018, one Xerox copy of text message and one Xerox copy of E-Ticket booking status on 15/03/2018.
O.P Nos. 1 and 2 filed written version denying all the material allegations and O.P No. 1 also filed evidence-on-affidavit and written argument and contended inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable either in law or in facts and complainant is misleading the Ld. Commission by suppressing the materials facts.
As per O.P No. 1 that this Ld. Commission does not have the requisite territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the captioned complaint and gave plea that the registered Head Office namely Vistara Airlines Situated at Jeevan Bharati Tower – 1,10th Floor, 124 – Connaught Circuses, New Delhi – 110001. As per the reply of O.P Nos. 1 and 2 it is admitted that the complainant purchased one E-Ticket on 06/01/2018 bearing ticket Nos. 2285923973397 and 2285923973398 flight No. UK725 in the name of complainant and his friend Mr. Jagadish Shah for travelling to Indira Gandhi International Airport to Bagdogra Airport on 13/02/2018 and according paid the required fair to the O.P Company. But they denied the allegations that the complainant and his friend when reached at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi on the schedule date of journey and reported to the concern counter at 12:17 hours the complainant came to know that the flight already departed at 10:30 hours.
The fact is that as per O.Ps that the complainant has failed to disclose the fact that as soon as the flight on which the complainant booked his tickets was rescheduled due to operational reasons, the O.P company issued four text messages on the phone number which was fixed in the complaint at the time of booking those tickets against PNR No. being 8101244780. The first message was sent to the complainant phone number on the same day on which the rescheduling of the said flight took place i.e. 23/01/2018, wherein the complainant was informed about the flight being rescheduled. After that the O.P Company sent messages on 11/02/2018, 12/02/2018 and 13/02/2018 one after another to the complainant. It is imperative to mention here that the text message sent on 13/02/2018 was not the first text message sent to the complainant informing him about the rescheduling of the flight as is being portrayed by the complainant.
The role of the answering O.P No. 1 replying that the complainant has further concealed the fact that full refund of the amount paid by the complainant, being a sum of Rs. 6,104/- has been proceeded by the O.P company to the bank account from which the payment towards the bookings were made on 22/02/2018. O.P company also denied that the complainant returned to Bagdogra by giving higher fare due to any fault attributable to the O.Ps and also denied that the complainant suffered any mental agony or monetary loss and denied that there has been deficiency in service and did not render proper service to the complainant and the O.P company prayed for dismissal of the case and repudiated the claim.
O.P No. 1 has also produced some necessary documents in support of this case. These are below:-
1. Annexure A - General Power of Attorney (3 sheets Xerox copy).
2. Annexure B – Schedule details (Copy of the sheet showing delivery of the text message) [4 sheets Xerox copy].
We have gone through the materials on record very carefully and also perused the documents which are lying on record and also heard argument on the part of the complainant.
In this context, the following issues are necessarily come up for the proper adjudication of this case.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the complainant a consumer u/s. 2(7)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 ?
- Has this Commission jurisdiction to try the instant case?
- Is there any negligent or deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and is there any unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps?
- Is the complainant entitled to get any relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Considering the nature and character of the case all points are interlinked to each other as such all such points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of brevity and convenience.
Point No. 1:- This is admitted that the complainant purchase one E-Ticket from the O.P No. 2 under booking reference No. 6h9S82, flight No. Uk725 from Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi to Bagdogra Airport on 06/01/2018 in economic class bearing ticket Nos. 2285923973397 and 2285923973398 for which the complainant paid the required fare, so there is no hesitation to hold that the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of u/s. 2(d) of C.P. Act, 1986.
Point No. 2:- It is seen from this case record as well as the evidence the complainant resides and the Branch Office of the O.P company situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Commission u/s. 11(2) of the C.P. Act, 1986 provides that “A complainant shall be instated in a District Commission within the local limits of whose jurisdiction (a) the opposite party or each of the opposites, where there are more than one at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carrier on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain” – the cause of action wholly or in part arisen. It appears from the case record that there is no branch office of O.P Company within the jurisdiction of this Commission. O.P No. 2 is not the dealer or direct agent of O.P No. 1. According to the written version of the O.P No. 2 he is a mere an agent of airline ticket but not in a particular company. So according to the C.P. Act this Commission has no jurisdiction to try this case as because O.P does runs any business within the jurisdiction of this Commission.
Point Nos. 3 & 4:- These two issues are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and brevity. This is admitted fact that the complainant purchased one E-ticket from the O.P No. 2 under booking reference No. 6H9S82, flight No. UK725 from Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi to Bagdogra Airport and the schedule date of journey on 13/02/2018 for which the complainant paid the required fare. The question is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P Company and is the complainant get any relief/relieves.
According to the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), “if a flight is delayed by over six hours, the airline needs to communicate the rescheduled time more than 24 hours before the original departure time and also offer customers either a full refund or an alternative flight”.
We have looked into the written version filed by both O.Ps and evidence-on-affidavit and written argument filed by the O.P No. 1 also the documents which are filed by the O.P No. 1 minutely.
It appears that after reschedule of the flight on which the complainant had booked his tickets the complainant had been informed on several occasions about the rescheduling of the flight by the O.P Company. Several text messages were sent to the complainant, days prior the day of journey of the complainant in the said flight. The O.P Company issued four text messages on the phone number registered on the complaint’s PNR being No. 8101244780. The first message was sent on the same date, on which the subject rescheduling took place i.e. 23/01/2018. The next text message was sent to the complainant on 11/02/2018 informing the complainant about the check in process. Another text message on 12/02/2018 reiterating to the complainant about the carriage of goods in the flight. Thereafter, it was admitted by the complainant in his complaint the last message was sent on 13/02/2018 i.e. on the date of travel by the O.P company, informing him about the check in timings.
The complainant has further concealed the fact that full refund of the amount paid by the comp0lainant, being a sum of Rs. 6,104 has already been processed by the O.P company to the bank account from which the payment towards the bookings were made on 22/02/2018.
The onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the O.Ps can not be held responsible for deficiency in service.
The Commission observed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Rather the complainant has suppressed the materials facts regarding refund of money as well as intimation for receiving the message of reschedule of the flight about one month prior to the date and time of departure of the flight.
Considering this facts we find that the complainant has filed a false case before this Commission suppressing all the materials facts actually done for getting some benefits from the O.P Company. The complainant did not file this case in clean hand and he has misleading the Commission by making false statement. The O.Ps are rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant due to their false allegation and claim. The complainant is not entitled to get any benefit from this false case. The case should be dismissed.
Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, for ends of justice; it is;-
ORDERED
that the instant case be and the same is dismissed on ex-parte against O.P No. 2 and on contest against O.P No. 1 without costs.
Let a copy of this final order be sent to the concerned parties through registered post with A/D or by hand forthwith for information and necessary action.
Dictated & Corrected by me
