Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/323/2015

Spicejet Ltd, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Sukhchain Singh Bhullar - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Punj

02 Dec 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

                                                       

 

Appeal No.               :    323 of 2015 

Date of Institution    :    30.11.2015

Date of Decision       :    02.12.2015

 

SpiceJet Ltd., 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon 122016.

……Appellant/Opposite Party No.1.

Versus

1. Dr. Sukhchain Singh Bhullar S/o Late Sh. Wazir Singh, R/o H. No.3004, Ajanta Enclave, Sector 51-D, Chandigarh.
2. Scorpions E Travels through Sh. Subhash Chaudhary, SCO – 83-84, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

               ....Respondents/Opposite Parties.

 

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

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                SMT. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Amit Punj, Advocate for the appellant.

 

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.09.2015, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which it allowed the complaint of the complainant (now respondent No.1) against the Opposite Parties and directed them as under:-

“14]      In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaint deserves to be allowed.  Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Parties are jointly & severally directed as under:-

a]  To refund the amount of air-ticket on which the complainant had not travelled i.e. from Chandigarh to Delhi;

b]  To pay Rs.3500/- towards the taxi fare spent by the complainant;

c]  To pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the complainant for causing him mental & physical harassment on account of deficiency in service.

b]  To pay Rs.7,000/- towards litigation expenses.

         The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties jointly & severally within 45 days of its receipt, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the above awarded amount of Rs.3500/- + Rs.15,000/- and on the amount of air-ticket to be refunded, as aforesaid, at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint till it is paid, besides paying litigation expenses of  Rs.7,000/-. 

2.             The facts, in brief, are that respondent No.1, being a medical practitioner/specialist in the field of ENT, was invited to conduct an examination at a Medical College at Nanded (Maharashtra). It was stated that he, accordingly, booked two return tickets of the Opposite Party with Scorpion Travels for departure on 2^nd June, 2014 from Chandigarh to Delhi at 9.45 A.M. with arrival at Delhi at 10:50 A.M.; and from Delhi to Hyderabad at 1:20 AM with arrival at 3:35 P.M..  It was further stated that the return was scheduled for 4.6.2014 (Annexure A-3, A-6). It was further stated that Scorpion Travels had further booked these tickets through AIRPAK INTERNATIONAL (Opposite Party No.2 since deleted). It was further stated that when respondent No.1 reached Chandigarh Air Terminal at 8.00 AM to board the Chandigarh- Delhi flight, he was surprised to know that the flight had been cancelled. It was further stated that respondent No.1, accordingly, lodged a complaint at the terminal and, thereafter, he travelled to Delhi by Taxi at his own expenses.  It was further stated that due to delay, his flight to Hyderabad also stood missed and he had to be accommodated to an alternate flight SG 239 with departure at 7:55 P.M.

3.             It was further stated that on reaching Delhi, when respondent No.1 checked in at the Flight Terminal, he realized that the flight was two hours late.  It was further stated that the flight eventually took off from Delhi at 9:35 P.M. and landed at Hyderabad around 11:40 P.M. It was further stated that respondent No.1, thus, had to stay overnight at a Hotel in Hyderabad at his own expenses, whereas the College at Nanded was to provide suitable accommodation. It was further stated that respondent No.1 could not reach Nanded before 1.00 P.M. as he had to travel from Hyderabad to Nanded having distance of 250 KMs.  It was further stated that the entire process of the examination was, thus, held up due to the delay caused by him.

4.             It was further stated that  respondent No.1 was on a very important academic engagement, but because of his late arrival, it created a very bad impression about him amongst his     co-examiners and medical students. It was further stated that on his return, respondent No.1 contacted the appellant for refund of the air ticket amount for the cancelled ticket but it did not comply. It was further stated that respondent No.1 sent a legal notice seeking refund of the money alongwith damages but the appellant did not bother to reply.  It was further stated that the return trip was as per schedule. It was further stated that respondent No.1, thus, traveled from Hyderabad to Delhi and from Delhi to Chandigarh without problem. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the appellant, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice.       When the grievance of respondent No.1, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint was filed claiming refund of the ticket money, taxi fare and damages for his reputation to the tune of Rs.10,22,100/-.

5.             After remand of the complaint vide order dated 12.5.2015 passed by this Commission, the parties put in appearance before the District Forum on 25.05.2015 and respondent No.1 filed amended complaint. However, when notice sent to Opposite Party No.2 on 27.05.2015 through registered post, was not received back, taking presumption under Regulation 10(2) of The Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005, Opposite Party No.2 was proceeded against exparte by the District Forum. Subsequently on 01.09.2015, when Sh. C. D. Jindal, Advocate, who was representing the appellant (Opposite Party No.1) did not appear, the appellant was also proceeded against exparte by the District Forum.

6.             We have heard the Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, at the preliminary stage, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 

7.             After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, 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. It is evident on record that respondent No.1, who is a Doctor by profession, had booked his air ticket from Chandigarh to Delhi and reached Chandigarh Air Terminal at 8.00 A.M. to board the flight. The flight after departure from Chandigarh at 9:45 A.M was to arrive at Delhi at 10:50 A.M and from Delhi to Hyderabad, respondent No.1 was to board another flight at 1:20 P.M. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the flight from Chandigarh to Delhi was cancelled and, consequently, respondent No.1 had to travel from Chandigarh to Delhi through taxi, for which, he incurred an expenditure of Rs.3,500/-. Consequently, respondent No.1 also missed flight, which he had booked from Delhi to Hyderabad and he was accommodated in an alternate flight SG-239, which departed from Delhi at 7:55 P.M. Respondent No.1 reached Hyderabad at around 11:40 P.M and as per his version, he had to stay overnight in a hotel at his own expenses whereas had the flight from Chandigarh to Delhi not been cancelled, he could reach Nanded in time where suitable accommodation was to be provided to him by the college.

8.             It is evident from Para 12 of the District Forum order that respondent No.1 did not receive any refund for the cancelled flight from Chandigarh to Delhi. Therefore, the impugned order directing the appellant and respondent No.2 qua refund of amount of the air ticket, on which respondent No.1 did not travel and to pay Rs.3,500/- spent by respondent No.1 towards taxi fare is perfectly in order.

9.             Though respondent No.1 also claimed that he   stayed in a hotel at Hyderabad at his expense but since no bill/document to this effect was brought in evidence, the District Forum did not grant any relief on this account to respondent No.1.

10.           Undoubtedly, respondent No.1 was to reach to the planned destination for a very important academic assignment, as external examiner for MS and Diploma in Otorhinolaringology  for the purpose of conducting examination of medical students alongwith co-examiners. On account of cancellation of the flight, he could not reach in time. There is force in his version that his late arrival created a very bad impression about him amongst his co-examiners and medical students. Clearly, the whole process not only caused him mental agony and harassment but also loss of his reputation amongst the students and co-examiners. Under these circumstances, the District Forum order granting compensation in the sum of Rs.15,000/- for mental and physical harassment undergone by respondent No.1, is also justified.

11.           Further perusal of record reveals that earlier also, in proceedings before the District Forum, when the appellant was proceeded exparte vide order dated 17.9.2014, the appellant filed Revision Petition No.50 of 2015 before this Commission and vide this Commission order dated 14.11.2014, the order aforesaid of the District Forum was set aside and case was remitted to the District Forum. The District Forum thereafter allowed the complaint against the appellant vide order dated 04.02.2015. Feeling aggrieved, respondent No.1 filed First Appeal No.66 of 2015, which was allowed by this Commission vide order dated 12.05.2015, setting aside order dated 04.02.2015 passed by the District Forum, whereby respondent No.1 was allowed to file amended complaint. During proceedings before the District Forum, the Opposite Parties did not put in appearance and had to be proceeded against exparte. Undoubtedly, respondent No.1 had to incur expenditure on litigation. Since respondent No.1 had to contest the litigation time and again, he was certainly entitled to litigation expenses. The District Forum, thus, rightly granted litigation cost in the sum of Rs.7,000/-.

12.           No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.1.

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

14.           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 dated 29.09.2015 passed by the District Forum is upheld.

15.           Consequently, the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is dismissed being rendered infructuous.

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

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

Pronounced.

December  02,  2015.

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 [DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 [PADMA PANDEY]

 MEMBER