Delhi

StateCommission

FA/387/2014

ETHOPIAN AIRLINE - Complainant(s)

Versus

DEVANIK SAHA - Opp.Party(s)

25 Sep 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

 

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

 

Date of Decision :25.09.2017

 

First Appeal No. 387/2014

(Arising out of the order dated 19.2.14 passed in Complaint Case No.431/12 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum-VI, District New Delhi)

 

In the matter of

M/s. Ethiopian Airline

56, 1^st Floor, Alps Building,

Janpath,

New Delhi-110 001

 

……Appellant

 

 

                                                      Versus               

 

Mr.  Devanik Saha

R/o 215-A, Siddharth Extension,

Pocket-C

New Delhi-110014

…Respondent

 

 

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

1.       Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

 

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

1.        This is an appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (in short, ‘the Act’) wherein challenge is made order dated 19.2.14 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, New Delhi District (in short, ‘the District Forum’), in CC No. 431/12 whereby the complaint of the respondent/complainant has been allowed and the appellant/OP has been held deficient in service and has been directed to pay Rs.75,000/- for deficiency in service as compensation and Rs.21,000/- has been awarded as litigation expenses.
2.       Briefly the facts relevant for disposal of the complaint are as under:-

        A complaint under section 12 of the Act was filed by the respondent herein before the Ld. District Forum alleging therein that he had purchased one air ticket for travel from New Delhi-Durban-New Delhi from the appellant/OP airline. His flight to Durban from New Delhi was booked for 04.12.2011. He undertook to travel to Durban as an NGO delegate from India to a UN Conference which was to be held at Durban. He was carrying with him “On Arrival Visa support letter” from UN Authorities which exempted him from carrying standard visa. However when he reached the airport his aforesaid documents were not accepted and was not allowed to board the flight and was told that he could board the flight only if he had been issued “OK TO BOARD” from Johannesburg Airport authority. He was also told that the aforesaid information had been received from Johannesburg Airport Authorities. It was alleged that on the next day he was allowed to board the flight on the same strength of documents which he was carrying earlier. It was alleged that with an ulterior motive and in order to accommodate some other passenger he was not allowed to board the flight on 04.12.2011. It was further alleged that on reaching Durban on 05.12.2011 his belongings were not found at the destination and the same were not delivered to him throughout his stay at Durban as a result of which he had to spend money in buying clothes and essential items for him. Even while coming back on 09.12.2011 his return booking on that day from Johansburg to New Delhi was cancelled without any intimation to him. With the aforesaid grievances, the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint before the Ld. District Forum claiming compensation under different heads, the details of which have been given in the complaint.

3.       The appellant/OP was ex-parte before the District Forum as such believing the evidence by way of affidavit of the respondent/complainant, Ld. District Forum had allowed the complaint and directed the appellant/OP to pay the amount to the respondent/complainant as has been stated above.
4.       Aggrieved with the same present appeal is filed by the appellant/OP.
5.       Ld. Counsel for the appellant/OP has contended that OP was never served before the District Forum as such no appearance could be made before the District Forum. It is further submitted that the appellant/OP has a good case on merits as such chance be given to it for contesting the case.
6.       After some arguments Ld. Counsel for the respondent/complainant states that for effective disposal of the case on merits, respondent/complainant has no objection if the impugned order dated 19.2.14 is set aside subject to payment of costs.
7.      We have also perused the record of Ld. District Forum pertaining to present case. We don’t find any service proof by which it can be taken that appellant/OP was served before the Ld. District Forum. Nothing in this regard is stated in the order dated 03.11.2012 vide which the Ld. District Forum has proceeded ex-parte against the appellant/OP.
8.       Keeping in view the above as well as stand of appellant/OP on merits and no objection being given by respondent/complainant, we accept the appeal and set aside the order dated 19.2.14 subject to payment of cost of Rs. 3000/- and remand back the case to the Ld. District Forum for deciding the same afresh after giving opportunity to appellant/OP to contest the case on merits.
9.       Parties shall appear before the District Forum on 26.10.2017.
10.   On the said date appellant/OP shall pay the costs of Rs.3,000/- to the respondent/complainant and shall also file its written statement. Thereafter, the District Forum shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with the law.  
11.   Since the matter has been remanded back to the District Forum, the FDR deposited by the appellant/OP before this Commission be released in its favour after completion of all the formalities.
12.   A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the District Forum-VI, New Delhi district for information. The record of the District Forum be also sent back forthwith.
13.   File be consigned to Record Room.

     

 (Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member