Date of Filing:17.09.2009<br /> Date of Order: 31.08.2010<br /> <br /> 2<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> COMPLAINT NO: 2231 OF 2009<br /> 1. Dr. Anusham A Anantharam<br /> S/o. Dr. B.A. Anantharam<br /> <br /> 2. Mrs. Charath Juvala Narayanan<br /> W/o. Dr. Anusham A Anantharam <br /> <br /> No. 9, Nandidroog Road<br /> Benson Town, Bangalore 560 046 Complainants<br /> V/S<br /> 1. Yatra Online Private Limited<br /> I B-21, Infocity, Sector 34<br /> Near Hero Honda Chowk<br /> Gurgaon 122 001, India<br /> Rep. by one of its Directors<br /> <br /> 2. Love Misra<br /> National Head – Retail<br /> Yatra.com, I B-21, Infocity<br /> Sector 34, Near Hero Honda Chowk<br /> Gurgaon 122 001, India<br /> <br /> 3. Raghu<br /> Senior Executive<br /> Yatra.com, 189/1, I Floor<br /> Brigade Road, Bangalore 560 001<br /> <br /> 4. Thai Airways International PCL.<br /> Level 14, Concorde Towers, U.B. City<br /> # 1, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore 560 001<br /> Rep. by one of its Directors Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> The facts of the case are that first complainant is a doctor practicing medicine. He got married on 05.02.2009 and had wedding reception on 07.02.2009 at Bangalore. Complainants chosen to go to New Zealand for their honeymoon. First opposite party is engaged in the business of traveling and tourism. Opposite party No. 2 & 3 are their employees. Opposite party No. 4 is an airline company. Complainants booked air tickets through opposite party No. 1 from Bangalore to Sydney. They have paid sum of Rs. 83,240/- towards air tickets. Complainants were to depart from Bangalore on the night of February 7/, 2009. Complainants were booked on Thai Airways for their onward journey from Bangalore to Bangkok and from there to Sidney. Complainants reaching Bangalore International Airport on February 7, 2009 were shocked to be informed that Thai Airways flight from Bangalore - Bangkok - Sidney booked through opposite party No. 1 had been cancelled nearly 25 days earlier and same had been allegedly informed by opposite party No. 4 to opposite party No. 1. The opposite parties No. 1 to 3 negligently failed to inform the complainants for such cancellation. Had the complainants been informed in advance they could have made alternative arrangements. On account of gross negligence of the opposite parties complainants were stranded in the airport much to their disappointment. However, on 08.02.2009 opposite party No. 4 arranged flight from Bangalore - Bangkok - Sydney. On account of carelessness of opposite parties complainants travel plans were unnecessarily rescheduled. On February 7 complainants returned to their home from the airport. They had no place to stay as their home was full of guests gathered to celebrate the wedding. The complainants forced to stay nearby serviced apartment by incurring expenditure of Rs. 4,455/-. On 08.02.2009 complainants left for Sydney. They missed the connected flights. They were constrained to book another flight at Sydney. Complainants suffered extreme hardship, mental agony and financial loss. Opposite parties failed to take any action to compensate loss incurred by the complainants. Complainants have not received positive response from the opposite parties. Legal notice was issued. Complainants have suffered needlessly and undergone untold mental agony and trauma on account of gross deficiency in service rendered by opposite parties. Therefore, complainants have prayed that opposite parties be directed to pay the cost of the extra flight charges and expenditure and compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for mental agony and trauma suffered.<br /> 2. Opposite party No. 1 to 3 filed defence version and submitted that complainant had availed the services of opposite parties for booking airline ticket only. Amount of Rs. 83,240/- is a combine amount for return fare. Opposite parties 1 to 3 provided service of booking the air tickets and nothing else. The primary responsibility for informing about any change or cancellation is that of the respective airline. Opposite parties No. 1 to 3 are not the operator of flight. Opposite party No. 4 should have informed about the cancellation of flight being principal service provider. Opposite parties No. 1 to 3 have not committed any negligence and deficiency in service. The opposite parties No. 1 to 3 earned commission of Rs. 2,608/- only in the entire transaction, while rest of the money collected belongs to opposite party No. 4. Therefore, opposite parties No. 1 to 3 prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 3. Opposite party No. 4 Thai Airlines submitted separate defence version and submitted that complainants have booked flight through official website of opposite party No. 1 in January 2009. Opposite party No. 4 had informed much earlier to the opposite party No. 1 that flight had been cancelled. This information sent on 12.01.2009 which was 25 days prior to the date of departure. It is submitted by opposite party No. 4 that opposite parties No. 1 to 3 have been irresponsible, negligent and failed to act in a reasonable manner. The very act not informing complainants of the cancellation of flight is indeed an act of extreme negligence and irresponsibility. Opposite party No. 4 provided express co-operation and courtesy and provided for alternate mode of travel by issuing fresh ticket free of charge to remedy the initial damage. The opposite party No. 4 informed the opposite party No. 1 regarding cancellation of particular flight 25 days prior to the departure. Therefore, the opposite party No. 4 prayed to dismiss the complaint against them.<br /> 4. Respective parties have filed affidavit evidence and documents. I have gone through the entire records, pleadings and affidavit evidence of parties and documents.<br /> 5. Arguments of the respective counsels for the parties are heard.<br /> 6. In the light of the arguments advanced by the respective counsels for the parties the following points arises for consideration:<br /> 1. Whether the complainants proved deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties No. 1 to 3?<br /> 2. Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No. 4?<br /> 3. Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation for mental agony, trauma and inconvenience caused? If so, against whom and what will be the quantum of compensation?<br /> 7. It is admitted case of the parties that the complainants booked 28 days honeymoon package through opposite party No. 1. Travel date was on February 7, 2009. After wedding reception on 7th February 2009, the complainants were to depart from Bangalore International Airport, Devanahalli through Thai Airways. The complainants reached Bangalore International Airport on the night of February 07, 2009 and they were shocked to be informed that Thai Airways Flight booked through opposite party No. 1 for their journey to Sydney had been cancelled nearly 25 days earlier. Unfortunately, the complainants were not informed of the cancellation of flight by opposite party No. 1. Opposite party No. 4 Thai Airways had informed the cancellation of flight of 7th February 2009 to the opposite party No. 1 though fax message on 12.01.2009 itself. The opposite party No. 4 has produced the printout message to show that cancellation of flight had been intimated to the opposite party No. 1 through electronic method. Therefore, there is absolutely no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 4 because the cancellation of flight on 07.02.2009 had well in advance intimated to the Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd. Now it is for the opposite party No. 1 to take responsibility of rendering deficiency of service. Opposite party No. 1 admittedly had not informed the cancellation of flight to the complainants. Therefore, the complainants were unaware of cancellation of flight. The complainants as usual after wedding reception went to International Airport, Bangalore with baggage under honeymoon package, but they were shocked and upset after hearing the information that Thai Airways flight had been cancelled on 07.02.2009. Therefore, they came back to the house on 07.02.2009. The cancellation of flight and not informing the same to the complainants is really very shocking and it gives lot of mental stress and agony and it will cause lot of inconvenience to any traveller. On the admitted facts and circumstances of the case no further proof is required to establish deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 1 because the complainants have booked the flight through opposite party No. 1 only from their website. There was no direct contact between complainants and the opposite party No. 4. Therefore, opposite party No. 4 cannot be held responsible for the deficiency of service. It is the opposite party No. 1 alone fully responsible and liable for the deficiency in service rendered to the complainants. The complainants have produced a letter of opposite party No. 1 dated 27.03.2010. This letter had been addressed to complainant No. 1 by the Branch Manager of opposite party No. 1. It is better to reproduce the letter of opposite party No. 1 so that the entire matter will be settled or decided on this letter.<br /> “Date : 27th Mar 10<br /> <br /> To,<br /> Mr. Anusham Anantharam<br /> 9 Nandidurg Road<br /> Benson Town, Bangalore 560 046<br /> <br /> Dear Mr. Anusham Anatharam,<br /> <br /> With ref to our meeting at your place (Nandidurg Road) regarding your travel experience which you shared, that the trip was spoiled due to airline cancelled the flight and we at Yatra did not inform you well in advance and there was major problems with your trip. The agent who was handling your travel plan (Yadhu) has been terminated for this irresponsible job.<br /> <br /> We do understand that the agony you went through during your honeymoon trip and because of this, all the other programmes were cancelled.<br /> <br /> As discussed and agreed by you verbally with you on 22 Dec 2009 when I met you in person, we thank you for withdrawing the case. We ensure that all your future travel will be done with more professionally and accurately.<br /> <br /> Pl acknowledge and do let us know about your next travel plans and kindly oblige.<br /> <br /> Thank you,<br /> <br /> For Yatra online Pvt. Ltd.<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> G Lourdes Mary<br /> Branch Incharge – BLR’<br /> 8. By this letter it is very clear that the opposite party No. 1 had admitted that they did not inform cancellation of flight well in advance and the agent who handled the case had been terminated for his irresponsible job. So this letter clearly establishes the mistake done by the opposite party No. 1. Opposite party No. 1 shall have to take responsibility for deficiency in service. He cannot pass on his responsibility to agent or employee. The letter of opposite party No. 1 dated 27.03.2010 is more than sufficient to establish deficiency of service rendered by opposite party No. 1. Complainants have claimed compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for mental agony, trauma and inconvenience caused to them on account of the cancellation of air trip on 07.02.2009. No doubt on next day the Thai Airline had arranged journey through their airlines and the complainants left Bangalore Airport on 08.02.2009. But the connected flights booked by the complainants had also missed and the complainants have to reschedule their entire honeymoon trip and thereby lot of inconvenience, hardship and expenses had been caused. The complainants also suffered financially on account of rescheduling of honeymoon trip. The complainants have claimed amount on different heads apart from the compensation. Taking into consideration of the deficiency of service rendered by opposite party No. 1 and mental shock and agony suffered by complainants, the complainants can be awarded global compensation for mental agony, trauma, inconvenience and shock suffered by them. On the facts and circumstances of the case we feel that sum of Rs. 40,000/- can be awarded as global compensation for mental agony and trauma suffered by the complainants to meet the ends of justice. The opposite party No. 1 shall have to be directed to pay the said amount of compensation to the complainants. No doubt no amount of compensation will compensate the complainants for all the injury, insult, mental agony suffered by them. But as a matter of principle and as a warning to the service providers to be more careful and vigilant in giving service to the customers, keeping this in mind we decide to award global compensation of Rs. 40,000/- to the complainants. Complainants being ‘consumers’ under the definition of Consumer Protection Act 1986, the said legislation being a social and benevolent legislation intended to protect better interests of consumers, the interest of the complainants shall have to be protected by passing orders in their favour since, they suffered mental shock and agony. In the result I proceed to pass the following: <br /> ORDER<br /> 9. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party No. 1 is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 40,000/- to the complainants within 60 days from the date of this order. In the event of non-compliance of the order within 60 days the above amount carries interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing complaint till payment / realisation.<br /> 10. The Complaint against opposite party No. 4 Thai Airways International Public Company Ltd. stands dismissed.<br /> 11. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 12. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 2010. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br />