Ernakulam District Commission Holds Happy Easy India Liable For Deficiency In Service Due To Providing An Invalid PNR Boarding Number
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by D.B. Binu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N. held that failure to ensure the validity of the number, despite accepting payment and confirming the booking, constitutes a deficiency. Brief Facts of the Case The complainant, a senior citizen, booked round-trip flight tickets...
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by D.B. Binu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N. held that failure to ensure the validity of the number, despite accepting payment and confirming the booking, constitutes a deficiency.
Brief Facts of the Case
The complainant, a senior citizen, booked round-trip flight tickets from Cochin to Bangalore with Indigo Airlines through Happy Go India Travel Company. However, upon attempting to return on the booked date, the complainant discovered the return ticket was invalid due to a fake PNR number provided by the company. This led to significant inconvenience and additional expenses to secure a return flight. The complainant's ordeal highlights several issues, including the issuance of a fake PNR number by the company, the denial of boarding for the return flight, and the financial and emotional distress faced by the complainant. Despite the company initially acknowledging the mistake and promising to resolve the complaint within 72 hours, there was a lack of action and communication thereafter. Efforts were made to resolve the matter, including submitting bank details for a refund, but the company failed to reimburse or compensate for the trouble caused. Despite admitting service deficiency and proposing a settlement, the company did not make any payment to the complainant.
Contentions of the Opposite Party
The travel company contended that the incident where the complainant was denied boarding for a return flight booked from Bangalore to Kochi was due to reasons beyond their control. They provided details of the booking process, including the purchase of round-trip tickets, the issuance of a PNR, and confirmation sent to the customer via email and SMS. Despite the complainant's claim of being denied boarding due to an absent booking under their name and PNR, the travel company maintained that they were initially unaware of the reason for this denial by the airline. Upon receiving the complainant's grievance, the travel company requested time to resolve the issue, emphasizing their customer-friendly approach and willingness to address the problem beyond technicalities. They offered a refund and expressed readiness to settle the matter by refunding the incurred expenses along with interest. Despite these efforts, the complaint was filed, prompting the travel company to propose a specific settlement before the Commission: a refund of the actual expense plus compensation.
Observations by the Commission
The commission observed that the travel company's failure to ensure the validity of the PNR number, despite accepting payment and confirming the booking, clearly constitutes a deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The subsequent denial of boarding to the complainant without prior intimation or reasonable cause further amplifies this deficiency, causing undue hardship to the complainant. The commission referred to the ruling in Jet Airways (India) Ltd. vs. Janak Gupta, wherein the NCDRC emphasized that the responsibility of ensuring the service promised lies squarely with the service provider, and any failure in fulfilling such promises is actionable under the Act. In this case, the documentary evidence submitted by the complainant, including the tickets, complaint correspondence, and email communications with the travel company, unambiguously establishes the transaction and the subsequent issues faced by the complainant. These documents corroborate the complainant's claim of having been subjected to a gross deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice. Furthermore, the commission observed that the travel company, despite acknowledging their mistake and promising rectification, failed to take timely and appropriate action to either ensure the complainant's travel was booked or provide prompt and full compensation. Such inaction and neglect, especially towards a senior citizen, are highly reprehensible and contrary to the principles of trust and reliability essential in service industries, particularly in the aviation sector. The commission directed the travel company to refund Rs. 5,842 paid by the complainant for the alternative ticket purchase, along with Rs. 40,000 for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, as well as Rs. 20,000 towards the cost of the proceedings.
Case Title: R. Rajam Vs. M/S Happy Easy India P Ltd
Case Number: C.C No. 433/2018
Click Here To Read/Download Order