28.05.2015

MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY, HON’BLE MEMBER

            The instant Appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.6.2012 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Siliguri in Complaint Case No. 8/S/2012, directing the OP/Appellant to jointly and severally pay to the Complainant/Respondent Rs. 8,910/- being the extra amount incurred by the Complainant/Respondent for purchasing the air-tickets from other Airlines and also to pay to the Complainant/Respondent Rs. 25,000/- as compensation within 45 days from the date of the order, failing which interest @ 9% per annum shall accrue for the entire period of default.

          Facts of the case, in short, are that the Complainant/Respondent booked on 7.11.2011 air-tickets on-line for himself and his wife from the OP/Appellant for air journey on 29.12.2011 (Flight No. SG 885 and SG 223) from Bagdogra to Delhi and from Delhi to Hyderabad at a discounted price of Rs. 9,816/-.  Barely 24 hours before the scheduled journey in question the Complainant/Respondent was informed by the OP/Appellant that the flights concerned had been cancelled on the ground of technical problem, which rendered the scheduled aircraft unfit for flying.   After such cancellation of the flights the Complainant/Respondent was offered by the OP/Appellant  the alternative flight of the OP/Appellant, but the Complainant/Respondent, without availing of such offer for alternative flight, booked air-tickets of other Airlines, i.e. Jet Konnect, against payment of Rs. 18,726/- for the same journey on the same date.  However, the OP/Appellant refunded on 3.1.2012 the total price of the tickets of the cancelled flights.  The Complainant/Respondent, having thus been compelled to pay the extra amount of Rs. 8,910/- for alternative air-tickets, filed the Complaint before the Ld. District Forum for refund of the said extra amount so incurred and also for compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-.  With this factual background, the Ld. District Forum passed the judgment and order in the aforesaid manner.  Being aggrieved by such order the Ops have preferred the instant Appeal.

          The Ld. Advocate for the Appellant/OP filing BNA submits that the flights in question were cancelled to ensure the safety and security of the passengers which is subject to regulation of the Civil Aviation Authority as the concerned aircraft was not fit for flying.

          The Ld. Advocate continues that the cancellation of the flights in question was not deliberate and that such unavoidable cancellation was intimated to the Respondent/Complainant as far in advance as possible and 24 hours in advance of course, as admitted by the Respondent/Complainant, in due compliance with the Aviation Requirements as envisaged at Para-3.3.1 and 3.3.2 of the Civil Aviation Requirements, Section 3, Air Transport Series M, Parg-IV issued on 6.8.2010 by the Director General of Civil Aviation (Running Page-22 of the Memo of Appeal).

          The Ld. Advocate further submits that the Appellant/OP offered to the Respondent/Complainant to choose their re-scheduled flights, but the Respondent/Complainant sought refund of the price of the cancelled air-tickets instead of accepting the offer of alternative air journey by re-scheduled flight as offered by the Appellant/OP and, accordingly, the Appellant/OP refunded the total price of the cancelled air-tickets to the Respondent/ Complainant on 3.1.2012.

          The Ld. Advocate also submits that the Appellant/OP, therefore, is not in any way responsible for extra price of the air-tickets as paid by the Respondent/Complainant for his own selection of different Airline for the journey in question. 

          The Ld. Advocate finally submits that the submission, as advanced hereinbefore, clearly indicates that there was no deficiency in service or deliberate negligence on the part of the Appellant/OP, rather the Respondent/ Complainant himself chose to pay the extra air-fare for the journey in question without availing of the alternative re-scheduled flights of the Appellant/OP as offered.

          The Ld. Advocate concludes that on the above facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned judgment and order should be set aside, it being unjust and improper and the Complaint be dismissed, it being baseless.

          None has appeared on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant inspite of due service of Notice as evident from the order dated 30.5.2014 of this Commission.  Even no Evidence-in-Chief or any Written Notes of Argument on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant is available on records.

          We have heard the submission of the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant/OP and considered the materials on records including the BNA as filed by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant/OP and the Petition of Complaint filed before the Ld. District Forum.

          The Written Version as filed by the Appellant/OP before the Ld. District Forum, as available on records, reveals that the scheduled flights had to be cancelled to avoid the risk of lives of the passengers to be on board as the concerned aircraft was not worth flying because of its technical problems.  It is also revealed from the Written Version that intimation about cancellation of the scheduled flights in question was duly sent to the Respondent/Complainant 24 hours in advance, which was well before the time, i.e. ‘atleast three hours in advance’, as prescribed at Para-3.3.2 of the Civil Aviation Requirements, Section 3, Air Transport Series M, Part-IV dated 6.8.2010 issued by the Direction General of Civil Aviation (Running Page-22 of Memo of Appeal). 

          Be that as it may, the fact remains that the Respondent/Complainant had to face inconveniences and sufferings caused by the cancellation of the air-tickets.

          Therefore, we intend to modify the impugned judgment and order to the following extent:

Appellant/OP is directed to pay within 45 days from the date of this order to the Respondent/Complainant Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost, failing which interest @ 9% per annum shall accrue for the entire period of default.  The other directions passed by the Ld. District Forum are set aside.

         In the result, the Appeal is allowed in part.  The impugned judgment and order is modified to the above extent.  No order as to costs.