The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission recently passed a judgment on a case concerning a senior citizen who faced significant difficulties due to a fake PNR number. The commission, led by D.B. Binu, V. Ramachandran, and Sreevidhia. T.N., ruled that the failure to validate the number, despite taking payment and confirming the booking, indicates a service deficiency.
The complainant had booked a flight from Cochin to Bangalore and back with Indigo Airlines via Happy Go India Travel Company. However, upon their return, they discovered that their ticket was invalid due to a fake PNR number issued by the travel company. This predicament led to considerable inconvenience and extra costs for the complainant to secure a return flight.
Despite the company acknowledging their mistake and promising to rectify it within 72 hours, their subsequent lack of action and communication was glaring. The complainant had made efforts to resolve the issue, including furnishing bank details for a refund, but the company failed to reimburse or compensate for the caused distress.
On their part, the travel company argued that the incident was beyond their control. They detailed the booking process, including the round-trip ticket purchase, PNR issuance, and confirmation sent to the customer via email and SMS. They maintained that they were initially unaware of the reason for the complainant’s denied boarding.
The company requested time to address the issue, emphasizing their customer-friendly approach. They offered a refund and expressed readiness to refund the expenses incurred with interest. Despite their efforts, the complaint was filed, and they proposed a specific settlement before the Commission: a refund of the actual expense plus compensation.
The commission noted that the failure to ensure the PNR number’s validity, despite taking payment and confirming the booking, was a clear service deficiency under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The additional denial of boarding without prior notice or reasonable cause amplified this deficiency, imposing undue hardship on the complainant.
The commission referenced the ruling in Jet Airways (India) Ltd. vs. Janak Gupta, where the NCDRC stated that the service provider bears the responsibility of delivering the promised service, and any failure in doing so is actionable under the Act.
In this case, the travel company’s failure to take prompt and appropriate action despite acknowledging their mistake was particularly notable. The commission found such inaction and neglect, especially towards a senior citizen, highly reprehensible and contrary to the principles of trust and reliability crucial in service industries, particularly aviation.
Ultimately, the commission ordered the travel company to refund Rs. 5,842 paid by the complainant for the alternative ticket, along with Rs. 40,000 for the service deficiency and unfair trade practice, and Rs. 20,000 towards the cost of the proceedings.
In conclusion, this judgment highlights the consumer’s right to receive the service promised, and any failure in doing so is a service deficiency, which is actionable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It also underscores the importance of trust and reliability in service industries and the consequences of failing to uphold these principles.
