BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.23 of 2022
Date of Instt. 25.01.2022
Date of Decision: 22.11.2023
Ravnish Rana S/o Ramesh Rana R/o H. No.1453/21, Amrik Nagar, Near Kishanpura Road, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Yatra Dot Com, through its Directors situated at Head Office 1101, 11th Floor, Tower B, Unitech Cyber Park, Sector-39, Gurgaon-122001.
2. Qatar Airways through its directors situated at Head Office Bajaj Bhavan Gr. Flr. Opp. Inox Cinema Nariman Point Mumbai 400021, Maharastra, India.
3. Air India Limited through its directors situated at Head Office: Air India Ltd. Airlines House, 113, Gurudwara Rakabganj Road, New Delhi-110001.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. Nitish Arora, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
OP No.1 exparte.
Sh. Sunil Mehta, Adv. Counsel for the OP No.2.
Sh. Anuj Bhalla, Adv. Counsel for the OP No.3.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the OP No.1 is dealing in the business of tour & travels, whereas the OPs No.2 & 3 are in the airline business. The OP No.1 operates via your website www.yatra.com and also has an android application. On hearing the popularity of OP No.1 regarding the business of tour & travels through advertisement on social media and as well as on print media, the complainant approached them for booking air tickets for a round trip to Russia. The OP No.1 booked the following flights for the complainant:
a). New Delhi to Doha to Moscow operated by OP No.2 departure from 15.09.2021 at 21.55 Hrs. & Arrival at Moscow on 16.09.2021 at 8.00 Hrs.
b). Moscow to New Delhi via Air India Airlines operated by OP No.3 with departure from Moscow on 20.09.2021 at 20.15 Hrs. & Arrival at New Delhi 21.09.2021 at 5.15 Hrs.
For the above mentioned tickets the complainant paid the OP No.1 the following amounts:
a) Ticket from Delhi to Moscow amounting to Rs.29,994/-
b) Ticket from Russia to Delhi amounting to Rs.19,735/-
Thus a total of Rs.49,729/- was paid by the complainant to OP No.1 through bank transfer from his account. The payments of Rs.29,994/- and Rs.19,735/- had been made from the HDFC Credit Card account of the complainant. The said payments dated 19.08.2021 are reflected in the statement of account of the Credit Card Statement. The OP No.1 assured the complainant that as per the latest guidelines one can travel via connecting flights and taking a direct flight is not mandatory. After the aforesaid assurance the complainant booked a package (4 Nights & 5 Days) of Russia i.e. from 15.09.2021 to 20.09.2021 which included, Visa for Russia, Hotel Bookings & sightseeing charges. The Complainant was granted a visa valid from 13.09.2021 to 26.09.2021. The complainant made payment for the said package as follows:
c) Visa Charges Rs. 12000/-
d) Hotel booking Rs. 10000/-
e) Sight Seeing Charges Rs.2000/-
Thus total amount of Rs.24,000/- was additionally spent by the complainant towards the package booked including the visa charges. The complainant sent an email to OP No.1 on September 13, 2021 to confirm that whether boarding a connecting flight is valid and permitted to which the OP No.1 again assured the complainant via email that the connecting flights are valid. The Complainant reached at the Airport on 15.09.2021 at 2.00 PM and gave sample for COVID 19 RTPCR Test which came negative at 5.11 PM. The complainant showed all his documents i.e. Visa, RTPCR report & Flight Tickets etc. to the operator of OP No.2 at the Airport and they didn't allow the complainant to board the flight with reason best known to them. They also conveyed the complainant that he needs to have direct ticket to Russia in case he wishes to board the Flight. The complainant had been asking OPs No.1 to 3 to return the amount paid to them to the complainant but to no effect. OPs No.1 to 3 have refused to entertain the request of full refund to the complainant. The complainant had been running pillar to post for receiving the amount paid to the OP No.1 by the complainant but to no effect. The complainant was not able to go for the trip due to mistake on part of OP No.1 being the travel agent. The complainant has also suffered the financial loss of the money spent on hotel bookings and visa due to the mistake of OPs No.1 to 3 and they are liable to compensate the complainant for the same. The complainant has wasted his precious time, which was reserved for his traveling. The complainant has suffered harassment, strain, agony & mental tension at the hands of the OPs no.1 to 3. The complainant is still suffering from mental harassment, since he is not able to receive his hard earned money given to OPs No.1 to 3. The complainant had served legal notice dated December 1, 2021 to the OP, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to return the payment of Rs.49729/- which was paid by the complainant to the OP No.1 for the flight booking along with interest @18% p.a. from date of making payment till realization. Further, OPs No.1 to 3 be directed to payment of Rs.24000 which was spent by complainant on the hotel bookings and the visa. Further OP be directed to make the payment of Rs.2,00,000/- as special damages on account of Mental Stress, Strain and Tension meted to the complainant at the hands of OPs and Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OP No.1 did not appear and ultimately OP No.1 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.2 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present case is not tenable on the ground of no cause of action. The answering OP prays this Commission to hear and decide the preliminary objections in the first instance as they strike at the very root of the jurisdiction of this Commission, to entertain, try or decide the issues. It is further averred that the complainant has deliberately engaged in fraudulent conduct and now seeks opportunities monetary gains under the guise of exercising their purported rights under the law. The complainant now seeks to blame the answering OP for the personal acts and omissions of subject. It is further averred that facts and the conduct of the Complainant unequivocally evidences that the present Complaint is vexatious and false in gross abuse of the due process of law. The Complainant has clocked the system for the adjudication of grievances of the common man viz the due processes of law instituted by the legislature by filing the present case is completely false and vexatious by nature hence ought to be dismissed with exemplary heavy costs imposed upon this ground alone. It is submitted that it was an implied reciprocal promise of that every passenger who purchases a tickets that he/she shall always conduct himself/herself as per the law applicable to him/her in respect of his travel. It is submitted that the passengers who presented themselves at the airport of the departing at the departing airport. The Complainant/Claimant/Passenger was asked basic questions regarding his travel and was not able to answer. The Staff at the check in counter had taken the decision as per the conditions of carriage not to allow the passenger to travel. In such circumstances the passengers and/or the Complainant/Claimant/Passenger having failed to perform its reciprocal promise of giving information about his travel/answer the basic questions asked about his travel. It is submitted that in view above said and the failure of the passengers and/or the Complainant/Claimant/Passenger to perform their part of the contract as mentioned above at the fixed time the contract became voidable at that moment itself. It is submitted that in such circumstances there is no cause of action on this ground alone and the present complaint should be dismissed. It is further averred that this Commission lacks the competent jurisdiction required to adjudicate the present case since none of the OPs as named in the present case carry on business or have a branch office or reside within the local limits and also the cause of action has arisen in Delhi which is beyond the juridical limits of the jurisdiction of this Commission, the present case is completely false and vexatious by nature hence ought to be dismissed with exemplary heavy costs imposed upon this ground alone. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had booked a one way E ticket on Flight No.QR-571 & QR-223 from the OP No.2, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. OP No.3 filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed out rightly because the complaint is totally vague, imaginary, hypothetical and ambiguous. Therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs. It is further averred that the complainant is estopped by his own act, conducts, admission and omissions from filing the present complaint, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs. It is further averred that no cause of action accrued to the complainant against the OP No.3, this is nothing but the misuse of the process of law, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs. It is further averred that the present complaint is not maintainable under the law. The dispute raised by the complainant in the present complaint is manifestly outside preview of the act. The present complainant is wholly misconceived, groundless, unsustainable and untenable. Thus, liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that the complainant has no cause of action against the OP No.3. As such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that the complainant dragged the OP No.3 into unnecessary, uncalled and unwarranted litigation. The complainant wants to harass the OP No.3. It is further averred that the complaint is false, frivolous, as such the complainant is liable to be penalized under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act. It is further averred that the present complaint is false, frivolous, misleading and complainant has also concealed the material facts from this Forum and has wrongly pleaded that The OP No.3 in the present case. There is no negligence on the part of answering respondent so the said case is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost for being made unnecessary party to the said case. It is further averred that the complainant did not board in the flight New Delhi to DHOA to Moscow which was booked from OP No.1 and the Airline was OP No.2 i.e. Qatar Airways. The OP No.2 did not allow the complainant to board in the flight inspirit of negative RTPCR report so negligence is on the OP No.2 and the ticket from DHOA to Moscow to New Delhi of complainant when to ‘No show’ which was booked from OP No.1 and the Airline was OP No.3 i.e. Air India so there is no negligence on the part of Answering respondent. All negligence is of OP No.2 who did not allow to board the flight. On merits, the factum with regard to booking of the tickets is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
4. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.
5. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by counsel for the OP No.2 and OP No.3 very minutely.
7. The complainant has alleged that he got booked the flights through OP No.1 from New Delhi to Doha to Moscow operated by OP No.2 from 15.09.2021 and from Moscow to New Delhi via Air India Airlines i.e. through OP No.3 with the departure from Moscow on 20.09.2021 and arrival at New Delhi on 21.09.2021 as 05:15 hours. The flight tickets have been proved as Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2. The statement of account of the credit card has been proved by the complainant as Ex.C3 which shows that the payment of Rs.29,994/- for the ticket from Delhi to Moscow and Rs.19,735/- for the tickets from Russia to Delhi was paid by the complainant. The complainant has also proved on record the copy of hotel vouchers and sightseeing vouchers Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5. Copy of Visa Ex.C-6. Receipt of payment of Rs.24000/- for visa and hotel made to the Starfish Travel Corporation as Ex.C-7. As per the documents, the visa was valid from 13.09.2021 to 26.09.2021. The complainant has also proved on record the email and reply Ex.C-8. Perusal of Ex.C-8 shows that the complainant sent email confirming as to whether boarding a connecting flight is valid and permitted or not and the reply to the email confirmed that the connecting flights are valid.
8. The complainant has further alleged that when he reached at the airport on 15.09.2021, the OP No.2 did not allow the complainant to board the flight conveying that he needs to have direct ticket to Russia in case he wishes to board the flight. This fact has been denied by the OP No.2 in written statement. It has been alleged by the OP that the complainant was not allowed to board the flight as he failed to answer the basic questions that were asked in regard to flight itinerary, hotel booking, duration of the stay and the reason to travel at checking counter. The OP No.2 has relied upon Article-8 of the Conditions of Carriage. Perusal of Article 8 of the Conditions of Carriage shows that this relates to right to refuse carriage, refusal to carry or removal of passenger. This column shows that the OP No.2 has a right to remove or refuse to carry the passenger due to their conduct, behavior, physical or mental condition. In the present case, there is no allegation of OP No.2 that the conduct and behavior of the complainant was bad or he acted in a nuisance way nor there are allegations that the physical or mental condition of the complainant was not good and he could not be allowed to board the flight due to security reason. The Ld.Counsel for the OP has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission, in Revision Petition No.492 of 2013, decided on 30.01.2015, titled as ‘Air India Vs. Sushil Kumar’ that ‘Relevant acts binding by reference to website of the airline mentioned in the ticket. Passenger was negligent in hence complaint dismissed’. But this law is not applicable to the facts of the present case as no such acts has been pointed out by the OP No.2, which are against the conditions of the OPs constitution or those mentioned in the tickets, nothing is there. The other law referred by the counsel for the OP is regarding the pleadings and bogus and frivolous revision petition filed by the complainant is also not applicable to the facts of the present case. The OP No.2 has not produced on record any document to show that the complainant was refused to board the flight as he was unable to answer the basic questions asked by the OP. It has been alleged by the OP that the complainant should be aware that he is to answer the basic questions and if he does not answer the basic questions, his conduct becomes suspicious. The contention of the OP that the complainant must know, is not tenable, as it has been held by the Hon’ble Delhi State Commission, in Appeal Case Nos. A-1814 and A-1815 of 2001, decided on 02.03.2006, titled as ‘Gulf Air Company Vs. Santosh’ that ‘Confirmation not given unless load reduced Complainants were forced to purchase tickets of another airlines, had to stay many hours at airport-Contention regarding problem of VISA, an afterthought to cover up its deficiency-Contention, consumer supposed to know terms of brochure book of IATA before purchasing ticket-Rejected-Any rule made by IATA in form of booklet is a unilateral contract-Provisions are guidelines for airlines for issuing tickets and not for passengers to know about-Passenger is not expected to first purchase and read the entire book before purchasing a ticket-Deficiency in service proved-Complaint rightly allowed by Forum - Appeal dismissed.’
No document has been filed on record by the OP to show that this fact was ever noted down by them that the complainants have been refused to board the flight because of their own negligence. Mere saying that the complainant could not answer the questions does not prove that the complainant is guilty. The guidelines issued by the Civil Aviation Govt. of India have been relied upon by the complainant. As per Clause 2.6 of the instructions of the Civil Aviation Department that a boarding can be denied to the passengers on the ground of medical condition of the passengers, safety or security or inadequate travel documentation, but in the instant case, the case of the OP is only that the boarding was denied to the complainant as he failed to answer the basic questions that were asked in regard to flight itinerary, hotel booking, duration of the stay and the reason to travel at checking counter. So, we find that this is no ground to deny the boarding and moreover, a law has been settled by Hon'ble Delhi State Commission, in case cited in 2006 (3) CPJ 366, titled as “Indian Airlines and Anr. Vs. B. D. Sharma”, wherein categorically held as under:-
“Passengers are sold the tickets through the agents or directly by the airlines. Once the airlines provides the status of the ticket 'OK' or 'Confirmed' it has no right to deny the boarding pass to the passengers in possession of such a ticket for any reasons whatsoever. We are living in a civilized and orderly society and therefore, to take such plea that the passengers who purchase the tickets and are given the 'OK' status and confirmed can be denied the boarding pas if they are not a part of the queue meant for “first -come -first served”.
9. In the light of above judgment, it has become clear that the tickets of the complainant were confirmed with OK status and thereafter, the boarding pass cannot be denied. It is the duty of the airline to check all documents, which are required for traveling, prior to issuing the air-tickets. In case any mis-conduct, mis-behaviour is found, they are bound to note it down and bring to the notice of the authorities and make a part of the record that they were refused boarding just because of their own negligence, but in the present case, there is no record to show the negligence of the complainant. So, with these observations, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for the relief.
10. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed against OPs No.1 and 3 as no deficiency has been proved by the complainant against OP No.1 as the tickets were got booked through OP No.1 which were confirmed and OK as per the complainant’s own case and there is no deficiency on the part of the OP No.3 as the complainant never boarded the flight from Delhi to Moscow and partly allowed qua OP No.2 as because of the fault of the OP No.2, the complainant could not go to Moscow and could not board the flight from Moscow to Delhi with the result, it became no show. So, the OP No.2 is directed to refund the both tickets fare i.e. Rs.49,729/- of the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of flight till its realization. Further, OP No.2 is directed to pay Rs.24,000/- i.e. hotel bookings and visa charges and OP No.2 is also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
22.11.2023 Member President
