Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/293/2021

Dr G S Arora - Complainant(s)

Versus

Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sukhwinder Singh Sudan

29 Sep 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/293/2021
Date of Institution	:	30.4.2021
Date of Decision	:	29/9/2023

 

1.   Dr. G.S. Arora son of Dr. Attar Singh resident of House No.212, Sector 16-A, Chandigarh.

2.   Angad Singh Arora son of Dr. G.S. Arora resident of 13, Seminole Street, Pontiac, Michigan presently at house No.212, Sector 16-A, Chandigarh.

3.   Virat Agam Singh son of Dr. G.S. Arora resident of House No.212, Sector 16-A, Chandigarh.

… Complainants

V E R S U S

1. Yatra Online Private Limited, Headquarters: Sector 20, Plot  No.272, 4^th floor, Gulf ADIBA, Gurugram Haryana-122008, India.
2. British Airways PLC, Registered office waterside, PO Box 365, Harmonds worth UB7 0GB.

Local Address: DLF Plaza Tower, Phase I, Block B, Sector 26-A, Sikanderpur Ghosi, Gurugram Haryana 122002.

.  … Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY		Sh. Sukhwinder Singh Sudan, Advocate for complainants.
		Sh. Dixit Garg, Advocate for OP No.1
		Sh. Shashank Shekhar Sharma, Advocate for OP No.2.

Per SURJEET KAUR, Member

     Briefly stated the complainant booked a ticket for complainant No.3 for at rip from Geneva- London-Delhi from OP No.1 by paying an amount for Rs.59,787/-. The departure of the flight was scheduled on 19.12.2020. Complainant No.3 arrived at the Geneva Airport on the scheduled date to board the flight  well in advance.  However, when he checked in, counter of OP No.2 did not open. Complainant No.3 made enquiries about the status of the flight from the information desk of OP No.2 at  Geneva Airport and he was informed that the flight has been cancelled. It is alleged that even the Ops failed to arrange alternative flight for complainant No.3 as a result of which he had to stay in Switzerland and had to pay high expenditures. It is alleged that despite the fact that OP No.2 cancelled the flight without prior intimating the complainants, OPs denied to refund the amount despite several requests. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed

2. The Opposite Parties NO.1 in its reply stated that the answering OP is an intermediary between the  service providers and the customers and it does not have any  interference in the modus operandi or working of merchants/service providers and the liability of any changes, deficiencies related to the service provider. Any issue related to the actual provision of service including change in flight schedule/rescheduling/preponment/cancellation./refund is not within the control of OP No.1 and is strictly within the control of the Airlines.   It is averred that the change  in timing was also not informed to the answering OP by Airlines. Denying any deficiency on its part a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3. Opposite Party No.2 in its reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that  the cancellation of flight  No. 925 which was scheduled to take off from Geneva on 19.12.2020 was cancelled on 19.11.2020 and the fact of cancellation was intimated to the travel agent through GDS. The complainants’ return flight No.BA2744 from London to Geneva Scheduled on 3.1.2021 was also cancelled and the intimation of cancellation was also updated in the PNR. Complainant No.3 was also rebooked on alternative British Airways flights for the same day with only a slight change in timings. However, OP No.1 and complainant No.3 were required to give an authorization for confirming the alternative bookings made for complainant No.3. But no revert was ever received from either OP No.1 or from complainant No.3 in respect of the alternative bookings made by OP No.2. Thus, the cancellation of flight was intimated well in advance and the answering OP had taken all possible steps to arrange alternative flights for complainants NO.3 on the same date as the original booking of the complainant No.3. However without consent of the complainants the ticket could not have been issued on alternative flights and the required authorization for the same was not provided to OP No.2 by OP No.1/complainants. It is averred that complaint is not maintainable against the answering OP as  the Virgin Atlantic  has processed full refund of ticket of complainant NO.3 to OP No.1 who is liable to pass on the refund to the complainant No.2 if not already done. . All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
4. No rejoinder filed on behalf of the complainant.
5. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
7. The sole grouse of the complainants through the present complaint is that when the complainant No.3 had to travel through the flight of OP No.2,  the same was cancelled one month prior to the scheduled date of the flight but no prior information was given to the complainants. Even no alternative steps were taken to mitigate the hardship faced by complainant No.3.
8. The stand taken by OP No 1, the booking agent is that it has nothing to do with the cancellation of the flight but it is the OP No.2 only who is responsible for cancellation of the flight.
9. On the other hand the OP No.2 the airline has clarified its stand that it did not have the contact number of passenger complainant No.3 so the message could not be forwarded to the complainant No.3. The contact details were very much available with OP No.1  who has already received the refund of the disputed amount, hence, there is no deficiency on its part.
10. After going through the documents on record it is  abundantly clear that the complainant No.3 was in shocking stage when after reaching the  airport for boarding the flight he came to know that the flight had already been cancelled on 19.11.2020 i.e. one month prior to the scheduled dated i.e. 19.12.2020. As per evidence on record, the OP No.2 kept the complainant in lurch by not providing immediate help in the form of some alternative flight and he had to run from pillar to post to fly to his destination. Annexure R-2/3 at page 31 of the written statement of OP No.2 makes it clear that  Virgin Atlantic refunded  the amount of Rs.58708/- to the booking agent OP No.1 on 27.1.2022.  Importantly, the present case is filed on 30.4.2021 despite this fact, the OP No.1 remained mum during the proceedings of the present case and kept the amount in its possession and filed reply alongwith affidavit alleging that the amount in dispute is to be refunded by OP No.2. Concealment of this vital fact in its reply, which is duly supported by affidavit of one Mr. Aditya Bhattacharya authorized representative is itself a case of false evidence on the part of OP No.1.
11. So far as the question of liability of OP No.2 is concerned, OP No.2 is trying to escape from its liability by putting entire burden upon OP No.1 for not sharing the contact details of the complainants.  In our opinion OP No.2 was also under bounden duty and obligation to seek details of the complainants and sent them timely intimation  about the cancellation of flight  in question. Hence, the act of OP No.2 for not informing the complainants in time and later on non providing alternative flight amounts to deficiency in service and it is liable to compensate the complainants for the mental agony and harassment suffered by complainant No.3 which we quantify to the tune of Rs.15,000/-.
12.      In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed in the following manner

1. OP No.1 is directed to refund Rs.58,708/- to the complainants with interest @9% P.A.from the date  when it received the said amount from OP No.2 i.e. on  27.1.2022 till onwards.
2. OP No.1 shall pay Rs.15000/- to the complainants as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment.
3. OP No.2 shall pay compensation of Rs.15000/- to the complainants for causing mental agony and physical harassment. 
4. to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainants as costs of litigation jointly by OPs No.1&2.

13.      This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i), (ii) and (iii) above respectively, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iv) above.
14. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
15.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member