Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/138/2015

S.Ragunathan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Air Asia India Pvt Ltd, Rep by its Managing Director, Kempegowda International Airport & anr - Opp.Party(s)

P.Wesley Isaac

07 Sep 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:  Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH       :    PRESIDENT

                                   THIRU R VENKATESAPERUMAL  :      MEMBER

 

C.C.No.138 of 2015

Wednesday, the 7^th day of September 2022

 

S. Ragunathan

F2,Yamuna Apartments

Block –I, First Floor

No.1, Ganga Street

Pushpa Colony

Saligramam

Chennai – 600 093.                                         .. Complainant

 

- Vs –

 

1.  Air Asia India Private Limited

Rep. by its Managing Director

Kempegowda International Airport

Alpha 3 Building, Ground Floor,

•  
•  

 

2.  The Directorate General of Civil Airation

Rep. by its Director

Jor Bagh Godhi Colony

New Delhi – 110 003 .. Opposite Parties

 

 

   

    Counsel for the Complainant           :  M/s. P. Wesley Issac

    [ No representation ]

 

    Counsel for the 1^st Opposite party    :  M/s. Shyamala T. Rajan

                                                            [ No representation ]

 

    Counsel for the 2^nd Opposite party   :  Set ex-parte

 

                                         

This complaint came before us for hearing on 17.08.2022 and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following :-

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT

                This complaint has been filed as against the opposite parties, under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for the following directions to the opposite parties;

1. To refund a sum of Rs.7,232/- with interest @ 18% per annum from 12.11.2014;
2. To pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony and monetary loss suffered by the complainant and his family members; and
3. To pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards expenses and cost of the complaint.

 

             2.     The case of the complainant is that he planned for a vacation along with his family members.  Hence, he approached the opposite parties and booked air tickets for himself and his family members, from Chennai to Bangalore.   The complainant paid a sum of Rs.7,232/- towards ticket fare on 12.11.2014 and booked six tickets.  The complainant and his family members were issued with travel itinerary in Flight 151220 Chennai to Bangalore, departing Chennai Airport on 17.06.2015 and arriving at Bangalore Airport on 17.06.2015 2.10 hrs.  Thereafter, the return journey by Flight 151211 Bangalore to Chennai, departing Bangalore on 21.06.2015 and arriving at Chennai Airport on 21.06.2015 at 21.10 hours.  The complainant and his family members were assigned with ASR numbers respectively.  In such a situation, on 24.04.2015, the complainant received a SMS from the 1^st opposite party that the flight No.151220 from Chennai to Bangalore and flight No.151211 from Bangalore to Chennai, for which the complainant and his family members were issued with the itinerary by the opposite parties is stated to be cancelled due to operational reasons.  The complainant was asked to contact the Toll Free No.18605008000 for assistance. The travel ticket fare was received from the complainant as early as on 12.11.2014.  Hence, the complainant sent an e-mail on 29.04.2015 complaining the deficiency of service on the part of the 1^st opposite party.  All his endeavours to contact the 1^st opposite party and his subordinates were in vain. The complainant sought for an alternate arrangement from the opposite party but, the same was not adhered to by them.  The complainant trusted the advertisement of the opposite parties and his attractive words “World’s best low cost Airline-6 times champion”. The complainant sent several requests to the opposite parties to consider and do the needful.  But the 1^st opposite party by e-mail dated 29.04.2015 and 30.04.2015 profusely apologized for the set back.  Hence, the complainant forwarded an e-mail on 04.05.2015 to the Appellate Authority of the opposite party.  In the said e-mail it has been elaborately stated as to how the complainant incurred a loss of Rs.7232/- towards the purchase of air tickets from the opposite party and about the additional expenses of Rs.6598/- incurred by him for re-booking the air ticket through Spicejet airways, for the original scheduled dates.  Thus, the complainant sought for reimbursement of Rs.13,830/- from the opposite party.  Thereafter, the complainant received a mail from one Mr.Riaz, Head Corporate, Quality and Assurance, Air Asia India stating that his complaint has been forwarded to the concerned department for corrective action.  Thereafter, to the dismay of the complainant no further action was taken by the opposite parties but again received an e-mail on 30.04.2015 profusely apologizing for disruption of the complainant’s planned travel itinerary.  Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint for the reliefs cited supra.

             3.  Resisting the complaint, the 1^st opposite party has filed a version stating that the complaint is a speculative one and is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The entire complaint proceeds on the basis that the complainant had booked air tickets on 12.11.2014 for himself and his family members, to travel from Chennai to Bangalore on 17.06.2015 and to return from Bangalore to Chennai on 21.06.2015 after staying in Bangalore, Mysore and Coorg.  But it is the allegation of the complainant that the opposite parties had cancelled the flights bound from Chennai to Bangalore and from Bangalore to Chennai, in which the complainant and his family members were likely to travel, allegedly putting them to mental agony and misery.  But the said allegation is untrue and false.  The flight services between Chennai and Bangalore was cancelled nearly two months prior to the date of journey planned by the complainant and the same was also notified to the complainant well in advance, as per DGCA Regulations.  The flight service between Chennai and Bangalore was cancelled due to operational reasons and the decision to cancel the flight was made only after due consideration and careful evaluation of alternate remedies available.  This was effected on the roll out of the Summer Schedule (29^th March 2015 to 24^th October 2015) and the complainant was informed of the same two months prior to the departure of the flight from Chennai to Bangalore.  As per the DGCA regulation, the 1^st opposite party duly informed all its guests of such cancelled flights and offered Credit Shell which could be used for future flight bookings within a specific time frame or in alternate to refund the full amount as against the confirmed bookings.  But the complainant did not reply to the opposite party’s mail dated 30.04.2015, either choosing to use Credit Shell facility or seeking entire refund.  The complainant sent a mail on 09.05.2015 stating that he has made alternate arrangements by booking tickets with Spicejet Airlines and sought for refund of Rs.13,830/-.  Further, due to non-responsiveness from the complainant, the full refund against the booking was processed on 01.10.2015 to the complainant.  As the complainant was timely informed, who has also received the refund of the ticket booking amount, absolutely there is no case against the opposite parties.  The opposite parties had received the complainant’s e-mail on 29.04.2015 at 6.48 pm, explaining the difficulties and consequences of cancelling the flight.  The employees of the opposite parties had immediately responded to the mail of the complainant by apologizing for the set back and also stating that the Company’s group head for customer service will immediately look into the matter. The said reply mail was sent at 6.51 pm.  Again by a mail dated 30.04.2015 at 02.02 pm., one Mr.Riaz was deputed to handle the matter of the complainant, which was acknowledged by the complainant on the very same day at     02.07 pm.  Mr. Riaz Khambata had also sent a detailed reply to the complainant’s mail dated 29.04.2015.  Thus, the opposite parties deny the allegation that they have wilfully failed and neglected to render the services.  Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and thus sought for dismissal of the complaint.

 

             4.    In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant, along with proof affidavit, he has filed 7 documents and the same were marked as Ex.A1 to A7.   On the side of the opposite parties, proof affidavit has been filed by the 1^st opposite party but no documents were marked.

 

        5.  There is no representation for the complainant and 1^st opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party was served but called absent and hence set ex-parte.  We have carefully gone through the material available on record.

 

                6.  The only question that had arisen for consideration is whether the complainant had established the case that there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  It is the case of the complainant that he booked 6 Air tickets for himself and his family members on 12.11.2014 by paying the full fare of Rs.7,232/- for travelling from Chennai to Bangalore on 17.06.2015 and to return from Bangalore to Chennai on 21.06.2015.  The payment cum confirmation invoice and the travel itinerary for flight No.151220 and 151121, would confirm the same.  In such a situation, all of a sudden, the opposite parties had cancelled the flight due to operational reasons and the same was intimated to the complainant on 24.04.2015, by way of SMS.  Now, it is the case of the complainant that because of the cancellation of the flight he had no other option except to book tickets for higher price of Rs.13,830/- in Spicejet Airlines.  It is the contention of the complainant that when the opposite parties had chosen to cancel the flight due to operational reasons, they ought to have made alternate arrangements for the passengers.  Therefore, there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  But, it is the reply of the opposite parties that cancellation of the flights were due to operational reasons and the decision to cancel the flights were made only after due consideration and careful evaluation of alternate remedies available.  Moreover, the complainant was informed well in advance i.e., two months before the travel date, about the cancellation of the flight.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on their part.  In this regard, they also relied on Clause 3.3 of the DGCA CAR Series M Part IV, dated August 6, 2010, which states as follows :-

“ Cancellation of Flight ..

    3.3.1 – In order to reduce inconvenience caused to the passengers as a result of the cancellations of the flights on which they are booked to travel, airline shall inform the passenger of the cancellation at least two weeks before the scheduled time of departure and arrange alternate flight or refund as acceptable to the passenger.  In case the passengers are informed of the cancellation less than two weeks before and upto 24 hours of the scheduled time of departure, the airline shall offer alternate flight allowing them to depart within two hours of their booked scheduled time of departure.”

 

A reading of the above clause would clearly show that only in the event of flight being cancelled, less than two weeks before and upto 24 hours of the scheduled time of departure, the question of providing alternate flight would arise.  In the instant case, the cancellation was informed two months prior to the date of departure, in compliance to the above cited clause of the DGCA CAR Series M Part IV.  Therefore, there cannot be any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  However, subsequent to the filing of the complaint, the 1^st opposite party had offered Credit Shell or refund of the entire amount of the tickets to the complainant.  The 1^st opposite party had also processed refund of the amount of the air tickets during October 2015 itself and an intimation has also been sent to the complainant attaching the screen short of the same.  Without accepting the same, the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking for further refund with interest, which cannot be accepted by this Commission.     

 

        7.  Therefore, we do not find any merit in the case.  In the result, the complaint is dismissed.

 

 

R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                        R.SUBBIAH

       MEMBER                                                                                 PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE COMPLAINANT

 

Ex. A1       12.11.2014       Air Asia Payment confirmation Invoice        

       

Ex.A2        12.11.2014       Air Asia Payment Itinerary issued to the

   complainant 

 

Ex.A3        29.04.2015       E-mail communication of complainant

 

Ex.A4        29.04.2015       E-mail communication of opposite party

 

Ex.A5        30.04.2015       E-mail communication of opposite party

Ex.A6        04.05.2015       E-mail communication of complainant

 

Ex.A7        09.05.2015       E-mail communication of complainant

 

 

 

 

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

 

              -  NIL   -

 

 

 

R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                        R.SUBBIAH

       MEMBER                                                                                 PRESIDENT

 

Index :  Yes/ No

 

AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/September/2022

 

 

 

 

 

 

C.C.No.138 of 2015

HON’BLE  JUSTICE

THIRU R.SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT

 

        Therefore, we do not find any merit in the case.  In the result, the complaint is dismissed.

 

MEMBER                      PRESIDENT              

07.09.2022                07.09.2022