Haryana

StateCommission

A/156/2020

MANJEET SINGH AND OTHERS - Complainant(s)

Versus

AIR FRANCE AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

ANAND VARDHAN

12 Mar 2020

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.156 of 2020

Date of Institution:25.02.2020

Date of decision:12.03.2020

 

1.      Sh.Manjeet Singh S/o Late Sh.Joginder Singh Khalsa R/o Tower-1, Flat No.201, Caitriona Residential Apartment Ambience Island DLF-3 Sector 24, Gurugram, Haryana.

 

2.      Sai Divkanwar Singh S/o Sh.Manjeet Singh R/otower-1, Flat No.201, Caltriona Residential apartment, Ambience Island DLF-  3, Sector 24, Gurugram, Haryana.

…Appellants

Versus

 

1.      Air France Corporate Consumer complaint office DLF Phase II, Gurgaon 122002.

 

3.      Air India Registered office Airliance House-113 Gurudwara Rakabganj road, New Delhi 110001.

…Respondents

 

CORAM:   Mr.Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial Member
                   Mrs.Manjula, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Anand Vardhan Khanna, Advocate counsel for the appellants.

                  

                                      O R D E R

 

HARNAM SINGH THAKUR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

The appeal has been preferred against the order dated 18.10.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (in short ‘District Forum’) vide which the complaint was allowed  and opposite party  No.1 was directed to  pay a sum of
Rs.15,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation charges.

2.      The brief facts giving rise to the complaint are that  in the month of September, complainant had planned a ticket for himself and his son from New Delhi-Paris-Edinburgh-Paris-New Delhi with Air France Airlines and booked the business class tickets through SOTC Travel Limited  At the time of check-in at the Air France, New Delhi Airport counter, the baggage’s as four in number to be booked upto the final destination i.e. Edinburg.  Upon arrival of the complainants in Edinburgh on 10.09.2017, only two baggage had arrived instead of four baggage.  The complainant reported the matter to OP No.1, they disclosed that two bags of the complainant were not loaded on the flight in Paris.  They requested the OP No.1 to expedite the process of recovery the delivery of remaining two baggage, which contains necessary articles, but, all in vain and grievances of the complainant were not redressed. The baggage was delivered on Sunday night whereas the other baggage was delivered on Monday night i.e. 11.09.2017.  The attitude of the OP No.1 was unprofessional and non-cooperative. The return journey of complainant No.1 through Air France Flight from Edinburgh was delayed and same left at 06.50 a.m instead of the scheduled time of 06.20 a.m. and landed in paris at 10.22 which was supposed to arrive at 9.10 a.m. no plausible explanation for delay was given.   Complainant No.1 has already given the boarding pass for the next connecting Air France flight from Paris to Delhi, which was supposed to depart at 10.45 a.m. The complainant reached the counter at 10.40 a.m. then they told the complainant that the flight gates have been closed and complainant was given three options to board the flight. The complainant opted the option as he attend the important meeting on Saturday morning i.e. 16^th September, 2017 and the complainant was given the boarding pass, when he reached to security gate, he stopped from proceeding any further as he was  informed that he would need the Schengen Visa in order to board the flight, but, complainant was  not in possession of the said visa. The complainant came to know that passenger who was holding both UK and USA visa they are not required a Schengen visa.  The OP No.1 purposefully refused the complainant No.1 board the flight and the complainant No.1 was choose to travel back to Delhi with the air India at 9.15 p.m.  O.P.No.1 failed to provide the complete information.  The luggage was delivered to him on 18.09.2017 after two days.  The complainant was business class traveler but the officials of the OP did not provide the required assistance and on  account of lack of medicines the condition of the complainant deteriorated and he vomited blood for two days and he was hospitalized at Fortis Hospital which caused trauma to the complainant as well as members of his family and complainant has also suffered severe financial strain and mental agony on account of omissions and negligence on the part of the OPs.   Despite several requests, the OP No.1 offered 594 UK pounds only and the said amount in the sum of Rs.61,280/- was accepted by the complainant from OP No.1 on 16.11.2017.  OP No.1 also offered non-refundable voucher of 400 pounds which the complainants did not  accept on account of bad experience of OP No.1.
Thus there was negligence on the part of the OPs.

3.      Notice issued to the opposite parties.  O.P.No.1 refused to take the summons, thus was proceeded against ex parte on 15.01.2018.  OP No.2 given up vide statement dated 23.11.2017 made by the counsel for the complainant.

4.      An application for condonation of delay has also been filed.

5.      There is a delay of 444 days in filing the appeal.  Appellants have filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act (in short “Act”)  for condonation of delay of 444 days wherein,  it is alleged that  the appellant had some communication gap between his counsel, the counsel failed to intimate the fact of passing of the impugned order.   The appellant being dis-satisfied of the previous counsel was availing services of the new counsel, it was only thereafter that efforts could be made so that appeal could be filed.  The new counsel has been instructed to obtain a certified copy of the impugned order. The delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor willful but on account of the reasons mentioned herein above.

6.      Arguments heard on application for condonation of delay as well as on merits of appeal. File perused.

7.      It is argued by learned counsel for the appellants that it is alleged that  the counsel failed to intimate the fact of passing of the impugned order.   The appellant being dis-satisfied of the previous counsel was availing services of the new counsel.  Further contended that the new counsel was instructed to obtain a certified copy of the impugned order. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that as per facts mentioned above, it is clear that delay in filing appeal is not intentional and may be condoned.

8.      However, the contention of learned counsel for appellants to condone delay is of no avail.  A period of 30 days has been provided for filing an appeal against the order of the District Forum. The proviso therein permits the State Commission to entertain an appeal after the expiry of the period of 30 days if it is satisfied that there is “Sufficient cause” for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period. The expression of sufficient cause has not been defined in the Act and rightly so, because it would vary from facts and circumstances of each case. It is settled law that delay of each and every delay should be explained properly with some reasonable cause but in the appeal in hand. No reasonable ground and sufficient cause has been pleaded or proved.  Merely, the time taken for 444 days to engage a new counsel cannot be termed as sufficient cause. Thus, inordinate delay for more than 444 days, cannot be condoned as there is no justifiable reason or sufficient cause to condone the same.

9.      Here reliance can be placed on the following judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

          The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 Supreme Court 1221 has held that;

“Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of case-law has grown around S.5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his rights must explain every days’ delay.”

          The Hon’ble National Commission in case Government of U.T. Electricity Department & Others versus Ram Lubhai, II(2006) CPJ 104 has held that:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 –Appeal –Maintainability – Limitation –Condonation of delay– Resjudicata –Appeal filed after a delay of 44 days –Plea of procedural delay in getting approval for filing appeal – Appeal filed by complainant against order of District Forum decided and copy of order dispatched to parties prior to filing of appeal by opposite party –Appeal and application for condonation of delay dismissed –Matter once finally concluded by any Court cannot be reopened by same Court.”

          In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009 (2) Scale 108, it has   been observed:

         “We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.”

    In 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) – Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:-

“It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for filing appeals and revisions in Consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the Consumer disputes will get defeated, if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras”.

 

10.       Even on merits, this Commission do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by learned District Forum, Gurgaon.  There is negligence in service on the part of O.P.No.1 and an amount of Rs.61,280/-/- has already accepted by the complainants.  OP No.1 also offered non-refundable voucher of 400 pounds which the appellants has not  accepted. The learned District Forum has reasonably compensated the complainant on account of mental agony and litigation charges.

11.       In view of the above, the application for condonation of delay for 444 days in filing the appeal is dismissed. We also do not find any illegality or fault in the finding given by the learned District Forum on merits. Appellant seems to have adopted a casual approach in filing the present appeal. The present appeal is without any merit and therefore dismissed, in limine.

 

12th  March, 2020      Manjula                                 Harnam Singh Thakur                                                         Member                                 Judicial Member                            

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)