Date of filing of the case- 23.06.2014

                                                                                      Date of Order                  -  25.07.2017

JUDGMENT.

Sri A.K.Purohit President.

1                 Both the minor complainants represented through their guardian complainant No.1 have preferred this case jointly along with complainant No.1 alleging deficiency in airplane service. The case of the complainant is that, the complainant No.1 and 2 are prosecuting their study in Mussoorie and during vacation they used to visit their parents at Balangir. For their visit to Bolangir during summer vacation in the year 2014, the complainant No.1 had booked airplane tickets from Dehradun to Delhi in the airplane run by the O.Ps and in another plane from Delhi to Bhubaneswar through Om Lingraj Agencies Bolangir.  The complainant alleges that, although they have allotted confirmed tickets in flight SG2328 for the travel from Dehradun to Delhi, scheduled to be travel on dt.8.6.2014 at 12.50 hrs, the same has been cancelled without prior notice and they are allotted to SG2326 plane in a different time for which the complainants have sufficiently harassed by cancelling the tickets from Delhi to Bhubaneswar and arranging a hotel for new schedule. These negligence acts of the O.Ps are deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.

2                  The O.Ps have filed their written version jointly. According to the O.Ps, the flight was cancelled due to technical and operational reasons which are beyond the power and control of the operating airlines. The aircraft was declared unfit for flying by the AME. The AME checked and found several complaints and enforce schedule of flights got disturbed and was rescheduled in order to minimize the inconvenience to the passengers. It is further submitted by the OPs that, they have acted as per the rules and regulations framed by the Director General of Civil Aviation and as per the said rules the cancellation of the flight was due to the reasons which were beyond the power and control of the O.Ps and hence the complainants are not entitled to compensation.

3                 Heard the complainant. Perused the written version filed by the O.Ps and documents available on record. It is an admitted fact that the complainants have booked airplane tickets in flight SG2328. It is also an admitted fact that, the said flight was cancelled and another flight was arranged for their journey from Dehradun to Delhi in a rescheduled time with these admitted facts it is to be considered whether the cancellation of the flight is due to the negligence of the O.Ps or not. It is submitted by the O.Ps in their written version that ,the company reserve  its right without assigning any reason to cancel or delay the commencement or continuance of the flight or to alter the stopping place. It is true that, this is a contract between the parties. At the same time as per the Rules and Regulations framed by the DGCA, a passenger is entitled to compensation for cancellation of the flight if he is not informed prior to 3 hours of its departure. Therefore it is the bound down duty of the O.Ps to inform the complainants about the cancellation of the flight prior to 3 hours of its departure. Although the O.Ps have pleaded that, they have informed to the complainants through SMS, there is no clear evidence on record to show that, the complainants have received the S.M.S. prior to 3 hours of departure of the flight. The O.Ps have not produced any affidavit evidence of the concerned officer who has send the S.M.S. within prescribed time. On the other hand the complainant in his complaint petition has submitted that they came to know about the cancellation upon their own inquiry in the Airport, which is supported by an affidavit. Therefore, it is believed that there was no prior intimation to the complainants about the cancellation of the flight. In a similar decision the Hon’ble National Commission in Station Manager & anr. Vers. Ms Femina Zai, reported in 2007(3) CPR 428 (NC)  held that “ where Indian Airlines cancelled the flight without personally informing the complainant about it amounts to deficiency in  service. “ In view of the said decision, in the present case the act of the O.Ps amounts to deficiency in service.

4                Due to the negligent act of the O.Ps the complainants have sustained financial loss as well as harassed sufficiently. The complainants have estimated the financial loss for Rs 32,773/- which is found to be correct and they are entitled to the same. Further the feelings and harassment of the minor children can not be calculated in money value, as the same is irrecoverable.  However , considering the facts and circumstances of the case, compensation amounting to Rs 1,00,000/- will meet the ends of justice. Hence ordered.

                                                                    ORDER.

                  The o.Ps are directed to pay Rs 32,773/- (Rupees Thirty two thousand seven hundred seventy three) towards financial loss and Rs 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) towards compensation and Rs 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) towards cost to the complainants within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the entire amount shall carry interest  @ 8% P.A till payment.

Accordingly the case is disposed off.

                                   Sd/-                                            Sd/-                                                       Sd/-

                                (S.Rath)                                      (G.K.Rath)                                          (A.K.Purohit)

                                MEMBER.                                   MEMBER.                                             PRESIDENT.