This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Kuwait Airways, challenging the impugned order dated 1.4.2016,  passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred as ‘State Commission’) in Appeal No.224/2016, Kuwait Airways Corporation vs. Ajay Gupta and others, vide which, while dismissing the appeal,  the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur in Consumer Complaint No.485/2013,  filed by the present respondent no.1/R-1, Ajay Gupta, allowing the said complaint,  was dismissed.

2.      The facts of the care are that the complainant,  Ajay Gupta booked two air tickets with OP/petitioner,  Kuwait Airways Corporation through their agents/OP-2 and OP-3 for travelling from New Delhi to Frankfurt for himself and his wife on 13.4.2010.  The complainant and his wife were to travel from Delhi to Frankfurt on 14.4.2010 and back from Frankfurt to Delhi on 18.4.2010 . A total sum of Rs.67,934/- was spent on the purchase of the tickets. It has been alleged that when the complainant and his wife reached Frankfurt Airport on 18.4.2010  for their back journey, they came to know that the  flight from Frankfurt to Delhi had been cancelled by the OP Airlines without any prior intimation to them. The complainant urged that the OP Airlines arranged alternative flights for other passengers,  but the complainant and his wife had to stay in Germany unnecessarily for three more days and they had to spend a sum of 1200 euros for the said stay. The complainant and his wife purchased tickets from Gulf Airlines and they reached Delhi on 21.4.2010. They had to spend Rs.59,561/- for the purchase of new tickets. The complainant, alleging unfair trade practice for not giving them prior intimation about the cancellation of the flight and then refusing to refund the amount of the tickets  for the cancelled flight, filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OPs to pay them a sum of Rs.33,967/- as value of the cancelled tickets  and also a sum of Rs.59,516/- as cost of the alternative flight,  alongwith compensation of Rs.2 lakhs for mental agony and also a sum of 1200 euros as their expenses for extra stay abroad.

3.      In reply, the OP-1 Airlines stated that due to sudden volcanic eruption over the  Frankfurt Airport  on 16.4.2010, they had to cancel the flight under force majeure conditions. There was no deficiency in their part and the complaint should not have been allowed. The OP-1 stated that the confirmed tickets for 24.4.2010 were given to the complainant,    after the Airport became functional. 

4.      The District Forum, after taking into account the averments of the parties,  partly allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.59,516/- to the complainant,  which he spent in paying for the tickets of Gulf Airlines for their journey from Frankfurt to Delhi,  alongwith interest  @ 15% per annum on the said amount from 24.4.2010  and also allowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony etc. Being aggrieved  against the said order, the OP-1/petitioner challenged the same by way of appeal before the State Commission and the said appeal having been dismissed, the OP-1/petitioner is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

5.      It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was delay of 60 days in filing appeal before the State Commission, because the authorized signatory of the petitioner was not feeling well. The State Commission should have condoned the delay and heard the appeal on merits.

6.      An examination of the material on record and a consideration of the arguments advanced before me,  reveals that the State Commission have dismissed the appeal on the grounds of limitation as well as on merits. As recorded in the order of the State Commission, it was pleaded by the petitioner before them  that  their authorized signatory was not available till the first week of January, 2016 and further, the memo of appeal which was prepared in English language,  had to be translated into Hindi language. The State Commission, however, observed that the excuse of getting the memo of appeal translated into Hindi language, appeared doubtful, as there was no bar in filing the appeal in English language before the State Commission. The State Commission rightly observed that there was no valid ground for the condonation of delay of 60 days. Even during hearing in this revision petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to explain the reasons for delay in filing appeal before the State Commission, but no satisfactory explanation was given.  A perusal of the ground of revision petition also reveals that no plea has been taken in the same, justifying the delay in filing the appeal before the State Commission. There is no justification, therefore, to alter the findings given by the State Commission that the appeal was barred by limitation.

7.      Now coming to the merits of the case, the District Forum as well as the State Commission have stated in their order that the Airport became functional on 21.4.2010 and this fact had been mentioned in the written statement filed by the petitioner. However, the OP-1/petitioner did not make alternative arrangements for travel of the complainant and his wife from Frankfurt to Delhi till 24.4.2010, because of which the complainant had to purchase tickets from another airlines, for which he spent additional amount of Rs.59,516/-. Both the consumer fora below in their concurrent findings have directed the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.59,516/- to them which they spent in paying for the additional tickets. In the grounds of revision petition also, the petitioner has stated that they never refused to refund the unutilized portion of the tickets of the complainant, but they had requested him to follow the proper procedure in that regard. However, the complainants never approached the petitioner to resolve the issue of refund on unutilized tickets. This plea taken by the petitioner in their grounds of revision petition is wholly unjustified,  as it was their duty to contact the complainants and try  to resolve their grievance, rather than expecting that the complainants  shall approach them from time to time for getting the said refund. This kind of attitude on the part of petitioner itself constitutes deficiency in service towards the complainants.

8.      It is held therefore, that the petition, is devoid of any merits, and hence, the same  is ordered to be dismissed in limine. The orders passed by the consumer fora below are upheld.  There shall be no order as to costs.