Delhi

StateCommission

A/11/652

SPICE JET LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

D.K. JAIN - Opp.Party(s)

30 Jan 2018

ORDER

IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL, COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :30.01.2018

Date of Decision :01.02.2018

FIRST APPEAL NO.652/2011

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

M/s. Spicejet Ltd.,

319, Udyog Vihar,

Phase-IV, Gurgaon,

Haryana.                                                                                                      ……Appellant

                                                                        Versus

1. Shri D.K. Jain,

    H.No.70, Kiran Vihar,

    Delhi-110092.                                                                               …….Respondent No.1

 

2. IBIBO. Com,

    Vatika Towers,

    G.Floor, Block-A,

    Sector-54, DLF Gold Course Road,

    Gurgaon.                                                                                      …….Respondent No.2

 

 

HON’BLE SH. O.P.GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                    Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                     Yes/No

 

Present:           Ms. Chhavi Sood, counsel for the appellant.

                        Shri Pawan Sharma, counsel for the respondent no.1

                        None for the respondent no.2.

 

 

 

 PER  : SHRI ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

JUDGEMENT

          Assailing the orders dated 03.06.2011 passed by the Consumer  Disputes Redressal Forum (East), Delhi in complaint case no.730/2010 in the matter of Shri D.K. Jain vs Spice Jet, holding the Airlines as deficient in rendering service to the complainant and directing the OPs to pay to the complainant Rs.12,399/- towards the  cost of the air ticket as also Rs.20,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and suffering inclusive of the litigation cost, M/s. Spice Jet Ltd., for short appellant/ respondent, have preferred an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (the Act) against Shri D.K. Jain, hereinafter referred to as respondent, praying for setting aside the orders.

 

          Facts of the case necessary for the disposal of the appeal are these.

 

          The complainant / respondent had booked two Air tickets from Spice Jet for undertaking the journey from Banglore to New Delhi on 21.04.2010 by the flight no.SG 216 for an amount of Rs.12,399/-. Accordingly as per the version of the complainant, they reached the Airport for boarding the flight as per requirement, one hour before the departure of the flight. But the Airport officials did not attend to them and in the process the flight had taken off leaving them stranded at the Airport all this owing to the callous and casual approach of the Airport official.

 

          Accordingly the complaint was filed by Shri D.K. Jain before the Distt. Fora alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Airlines and claiming both the refund of the amount spent for purchase of the tickets as also compensation for the agony caused both mental and physical, which complaint was allowed and Airlines were directed to refund the amount spent by the complainant  for the purchase of fresh tickets for the journey between Bangalore and Delhi by another Airlines, namely, JETLITE as also the compensation, which orders are assailed in this appeal. The appeal has been filed alongwith an application praying for condonation of delay.

 

          The appellant has prayed for condonation on the ground that after the receipt of the order they had preferred an application for review of the order which application was later dismissed as non-maintainable. An averment has been made that if the time is counted from the date of receipt of the orders passed by the ld. Distt. Fora, dismissing the application for review, the appeal would be within time.

 

          The respondents were noticed. The respondent no.1 has filed reply opposing the prayer made for condonation of delay. However nothing  substantial has been averred opposing the prayer for condonation of delay. Moreover  we note that the delay has been caused pursuing the remedy on a plat form otherwise not permissible. Since we note that the action on the part of the appellant pursuing the remedy of review is bone fide we condone the delay, noting that the appellant had moved into the matter soon after the order on the review application was passed. There appears to no slackness on their part pursing the remedy.

 

          The matter was listed before us for final hearing on 30.01.2018 when counsel for both sides appeared and advanced their arguments. We have perused the records of the case. We have given our consideration to the subject matter.

 

          The ld. Counsel for the appellant has argued that a passenger traveling by Spice Jet is required to report at least thirty minutes before the departure of the flight. Gates are closed thereafter. The flight was to depart from Bangalore to Delhi at 8.15 p.m. Even in the tickets it is clearly and categorically indicated that the passenger travelling may report 45 minutes before the departure time.

 

          Short question for adjudication is whether there exists any deficiency on the part of the Spice Jet taking off from Bangalore without  boarding the complainant/ respondent in the flight. This leads to another question to find out the reason for the inability of the Airlines not boarding the complainant/ respondent.

 

          The version of the complainant is that they had reported to the Airport officials on time while the Airlines maintained that the passenger delayed reporting. The ld. Counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the “Reservation Record” finding place at page 40 of the appeal indicating, inter alia, as under:-

 

                    “Guest reported at 20.06. hrs hence denied check in.”

 

          Secondly, the complainant’s self admission as indicated in the letter annexed with the reply filed by the IBIBO, respondent no.2 before the Distt. For a is sufficient to reach to a conclusion that the passenger had reported late. The relevant para of the said letter is reproduced below:-

 

While returning from Bangalore on 26^th April 2010 I missed my flight due to the reason that I reached check in counter 25 min before flight time, although I agree my mistake that check in time is 30 min before flight and I reached little late, but the flight was still there till that time.

 

          The ld. Counsel for the complainant/ respondent did not throw any light to the arguments advanced by the Airlines. This leads to an inevitable and inescapable conclusion that the  complainant/ respondent was found wanting in observing the time schedule. If that be the case, he cannot take the advantage of his own wrong.

 

          The State Commission of J&K, has held in the matter of Jet Airways (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Capt. K.S. Bajwa – IV (2010) CPJ 196 (J&K) – as under:-

“The complainant and his family members were duly informed about the flight time. They failed to report on time. Passenger Manifest List mentions the name of those passengers who were present during “Checking in” time. Check in time ends before 30 minutes from taking off the flight. Admittedly respondent reached later than stipulated time. Respondents themselves negligent for missing flight. No deficiency in service proved. Order set aside. No relief entitled.”

 

          The principles of deficiency in service has been discussed by the State Commission, Chhatisgarh in the matter of Lakhvinder Singh Sharma vs. Cholamandalam M/s. General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr as reported in II (2012) CPJ 109 (Chhat) holding as under:-

 

“It cannot be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection, short coming or inadequacy in quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be performed by person in pursuance of contract or otherwise in relation to any service.”

 

          Having regard to the discussion done and facts of the case we are of the considered view that the impugned order since not sustainable, is to be set aside. Appeal is allowed and consequently the complaint is rejected leaving the parties to bear the cost.

 

Ordered  accordingly.

 

Let a copy of this order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required. A copy of the order may be sent to the Distt. Fora for information.

 

          File be consigned to records.

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                            (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                                     MEMBER (JUDICIAL)