Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/44/2015

Spicejet Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ashish Gupta - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Punj & Sourabh Goel,Adv.

20 Feb 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

                                                                 

First Appeal No.	:	44 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	19.02.2015
Date of Decision	:	20.02.2015

 

 

1. Spicejet Ltd., 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase IV, Gurgaon, Haryana.
2. Spicejet Airlines (Airport office) Civil Air Terminal, Airport, Chandigarh – 160002.

[Appellants No.1 and 2 through authorized representative, Vijay Roy, Manager (Legal)]

……Appellants/Opposite Parties.

Versus

Sh. Ashish Gupta #1695, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

                     ....Respondent/Complainant.

 

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                SMT. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

               

Argued by:Sh. Sourabh Goel, Advocate for the appellants.

                  

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

            This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.01.2015, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it allowed the complaint filed by the complainant (now respondent) and directed the Opposite Parties (now appellants), jointly and severally, as under:-

“14.      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties is found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed, qua them, jointly and severally. The Opposite Parties are directed to:-

[a]  To refund Rs.19,906/- to the Complainant;

[b]  To pay Rs.10,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant;

[c]   To pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation;

15.        The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] of para 14 above, apart from costs of litigation of Rs.10,000/-, from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid.”

2.         The facts, in brief, are that in the month of March, 2014, the complainant and another person Mr. Ambreesh Kumar Singh got two seats booked for  travelling by Air on 7.7.2014 from Chandigarh to Srinagar and for return journey on 14.07.2014 from Srinagar to Chandigarh and paid Rs.10,094/- in cash i.e. Rs.5,047/- each vide receipt dated 10.03.2014 (Annexure C-1) issued by Opposite Party No.2. It was stated that in the middle of June 2014, the complainant made a call to Opposite Party No.2 and told that due to urgent domestic work, he would not be able to travel on 7.7.2014 and requested to cancel his booking. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.2 asked the complainant to give his Bank account number and Bank Branch code but the complainant could not tell the Bank Branch Code No. at that time. It was further stated that the complainant gave Bank A/c No.650237199029 of State Bank of Patiala, Sector 22D, Chandigarh and also his email address. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.2 also informed that the booking could not be cancelled without the Bank Code No. and thereafter, the complainant did not call/approach Opposite Party No.2.

3.         It was further stated that neither the booking was cancelled nor the complainant received any information, as regards the same. The complainant decided to travel on 7.7.2014, as about 10 of his friends, who were also travelling, on the same day, wished to take the complainant as group leader for Amar Nath Yatra. It was further stated that the complainant reached the Airport on 7.7.2014, but was stunned to know that his booking stood cancelled and he was asked to pay Rs.19,906/- to purchase new current booking ticket. It was further stated that the complainant had to borrow money from his friends to purchase the current booking ticket (Annexure C-2). It was further stated that on return from journey on 14.07.2014, the complainant enquired from Opposite Party No.2, as to why his booking dated 10.3.2014 was cancelled without informing him and why an amount of Rs.19,906/- was taken from him. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.2 replied that the current booking charges were Rs.19,906/- on 7.7.2014. It was further stated that the complainant telephonically requested Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, a number of times, to refund Rs.19,906/-, but to no avail. It was further stated that once the complainant had given his email address to the Opposite Parties, they should have informed him about the cancellation of booking and credited an amount of Rs.5,047/- in to Bank Account.

4.         It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, seeking directions to the Opposite Parties, to refund the amount of Rs.19,906/-charged on account of extra booking; pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony and Rs.15,000/- as cost of litigation.  

5.           The Opposite Parties, in their joint written version, admitted that in the middle of June 2014, the complainant telephonically informed Opposite Party No.2, that due to urgent domestic work, he would not be able to travel on 7.7.2014 and requested to cancel his booking. It was stated that after cancelling the ticket and providing PNR number to the complainant for the said cancellation, Opposite Party No.2 asked him to give his Bank Account Number and Bank Branch Code No but he could not tell the Bank Branch Code No at that time. It was admitted that the complainant gave Bank Account of State Bank of Patiala, Sector 22D, Chandigarh and also his email address. It was denied that Opposite Party No.2 told the complainant that the booking could not be cancelled without the Bank Branch Code No. It was further stated that during the said phone call, the booked ticket was cancelled when the complainant provided necessary details regarding booked ticket and it was informed to him that the ticket had been cancelled. It was further stated that the Customer Care Executive also requested for additional details regarding email and Bank account particulars for the remittance of balance amount, after deducting the cancellation fee of the ticket, but the complainant was unable to provide Bank Code No. and, therefore, the process of remittance of the said balance amount could not be proceeded. It was further stated that the complainant decided to call later, after enquiring about the required details, for remitting the said amount.

6.         It was further stated that the cancellation process was completed and only the process of remitting of balance amount was left, which could not be remitted back due to inaction on the part of the complainant. It was further stated that the amount of Rs.19,906/- was taken from the complainant as a new ticket was booked for him and at that point of time, he was charged the existing fare. It was denied that the complainant ever sought refund of Rs.19,906/- from the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

7.         The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

8.         After hearing the Counsel for the parties and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum allowed the complaint, as stated above, in the opening para of the instant order. 

9.         Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties.

10.       We have heard the Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties, at the preliminary stage, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 

11.       The Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties, submitted that the respondent/complainant requested their Customer Care Services for cancellation of the ticket, in question, for both the sectors   and  the same  was  cancelled. He further submitted that a new PNR No.WZWSNR   was   generated which was informed to the respondent/ complainant. He further submitted that as regards refund of money, the Bank details and other particulars of the respondent/complainant were required. He further submitted  that  the  respondent/complainant  did not know IFSC code and he sought some time for the same and assured the said representative that he would call him up after some time. He further submitted that since the ticket had been cancelled, the respondent/complainant was rightly refused to board the flight. He further submitted that the cancellation of ticket and refund of amount were two different things. He further submitted that the entire recording of the respondent/complainant, who cancelled the ticket, had been preserved by the appellants/Opposite Parties and they (appellants/Opposite Parties) reserved their right to file the written transcript of the same, on record, for kind perusal of this Commission. He further submitted that the impugned order passed by the District Forum was liable to be set aside as there was no nexus between the alleged deficiency and the amount claimed by the respondent/complainant.

12.       After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

13.       It is evident that the respondent/ complainant and his friend Mr. Ambreesh Kumar Singh booked two seats of Spicejet in the month of March 2014, for undertaking journey from Chandigarh to Srinagar on 7.7.2014 and return journey from Srinagar to Chandigarh on 14.07.2014 after paying an amount of Rs.10,094/- in cash i.e. Rs.5,047/- each vide receipt dated 10.03.2014 (Annexure C-1) issued by Opposite Party No.2. The case of the complainant is that as due to urgent domestic work, he was not in a position to travel on 7.7.2014, he requested for cancellation of his booking and when Opposite Party No.2 asked him his Bank Account No. and Bank Branch Code, he could not tell the Bank Branch Code at that time but he gave Bank Account No.650237199029 of State Bank of Patiala, Sector 22D, Chandigarh and also his email address. He also specifically averred that he was told by Opposite Party No.2 that the booking could not be cancelled without the Bank Branch Code No. When the email address and Bank Account No. were available with the appellants/Opposite Parties and this fact has not been denied by them, in the event of cancellation of ticket, they (appellants/Opposite Parties) could very well inform the respondent/complainant about the same (cancellation) and the money could also be refunded to him by way of demand draft or cash. On account of non receipt of any confirmation regarding cancellation of the ticket, the respondent/complainant was under a bonafide belief that his booking remained intact and when he went to board the flight, he came to know that the ticket had been cancelled and he had to spend a sum of Rs.19,906/- afresh for buying the air ticket. The refund on account of the alleged cancellation of the ticket had not been made by the appellants/Opposite Parties to the respondent/complainant till the filing of the complaint or during proceedings in the District Forum.

14.       The District Forum, has rightly held that neither the terms nor conditions governing the refund policy nor the affidavit of the said Customer Care Executive were placed, on record, by the appellants/Opposite Parties, in support of their case. It (District Forum) was also right in holding that no proof was brought, on record, to show that the appellants/Opposite Parties sent any message or communication to the respondent/complainant with regard to cancellation of his ticket. The District Forum, in Para 12 of its order, also rightly held that once the respondent/complainant was having confirmed ticket in his possession, he could not imagine that on reaching the airport, he would be confronted with a situation that his ticket had been cancelled, leaving him in lurch, especially when he was totally ignorant about the cancellation of his confirmed ticket by the appellants/Opposite Parties.

15.       As regards the averment of the appellants/Opposite Parties that they had preserved the entire recording of the respondent/complainant relating to cancellation of the ticket, and they reserved their right to file the written transcript of the same, on record, for kind perusal of this Commission, the same amounts to concealing the alleged factual position. We fail to understand, as to what prevented the appellants/Opposite Parties, to produce the transcript, in the District Forum, during the pendency of the complaint before it.   Accordingly, we endorse the view of the District Forum that the act of the appellants/Opposite Parties of canceling the confirmed ticket of the respondent/complainant not only amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, but it also amounted to unfair trade practice on their part.

16.       No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties.

17.       In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality, warranting the interference of this Commission.

18.        For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

19.       Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

20.       The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

February 20, 2015.

 

 

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER 

 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

      MEMBER

 Ad