Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/239/2017

InterGlobe Aviation Limited (IndiGo) - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Yashpaul Sharma - Opp.Party(s)

Jasdeep Kaur, Adv.

02 Nov 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

First Appeal No.	239 of 2017
Date of Institution	03.10.2017
Date of Decision	02.11.2017

InterGlobe Aviation Limited (IndiGo) Level 5, Tower-D, Global Business Park, MG Road, Gurgaon, Haryana, 122002 India, through its Managing Director.

            …..Appellant/Opposite Party

V e r s u s

Dr. Yashpaul Sharma, resident of H.N.8 – HI, PGI Campus, Chandigarh.

                      …..Respondent/Complainant

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

BEFORE:  SH. DEV RAJ, PRESIDING MEMBER.

                SMT. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

 

Argued by:  Sh. Jasdeep Kaur, Advocate for the appellant.

                          

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

              This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.08.2017 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, filed by the complainant (now respondent), and directed the Opposite Party (now appellant) as under:-

“10]     Keeping in view the facts & circumstances in the present case, the complaint is allowed with directions to OPs to pay back Rs.8700/- along with compensatory cost of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

   If the order is not complied with by the Opposite Party within the above stipulated period, the Opposite Party shall also pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.20,000/-.”

2. The facts in brief, are that, the complainant, a Professor & Head, Department of Cardiology, Advanced Cardiac Centre, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, booked four air tickets for 03.04.2017 for flight No.6E 356 in IndiGo airline for himself, his wife Mrs. Anita Sharma,
   Ms. Asmita Sharma (daughter) and Master Ayushya Sharma (son) vide Annexure C-1 for travelling from Jaipur to Chandigarh on 20.03.2017, on payment of Rs.10,696/- through credit card (Annexure C-2.). It was stated that the son of the complainant suddenly fell sick while at Jaipur and as such, the complainant alongwith his family was compelled to pre-pone his visit to Chandigarh for 29.03.2017. It was further stated that the complainant in exigency of official work, as well as sickness of his son, travelled from Jaipur to Chandigarh on 29.03.2017 and the airline tickets for 03.04.2017 were got cancelled on 02.04.2017. It was further stated that the complainant took up the matter with Opposite Party for refund of booking amount of Rs.10,696/-, but it only refunded Rs.1996/-.  It was further stated that the Opposite Party illegally, without any logic and reason confiscated the amount of Rs.8700/- (10,696-1996) whereas the cancellation of flight was made on 02.04.2017 at 4:43 pm., for flight number 6E 356 dated 03.04.2017 to be departed at 12:30, meaning thereby the booking was cancelled 19:45 hours earlier. It was further stated that as per rules conveyed vide letter dated 04.04.2017 (Annexure C-3) formulated by Opposite Party, for cancellation of flights two hours before scheduled departure, no cancellation fee is leviable and in this way, the complainant was not liable to pay any cancellation charges as deducted by the Opposite Party.  It was further stated that deduction of Rs.8700/- by the Opposite Party, on the pretext of cancellation fee is illegal and the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.
3. The Opposite Party had filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the booking made by the complainant was governed by certain terms & conditions of carriage known as “IndiGo Conditions of Carriage-Domestic”.  It is stated that as per Article 5.3 of CoC (Annexure R-2), if a booking is cancelled upto 2 hours before the scheduled time of departure of the flight, passengers shall be eligible for a refund of the residual booking amount after deduction of the applicable cancellation fee.  It was further stated that the complainant, on 02.04.2017 telephonically requested the cancellation of all four air tickets booked by him and accordingly, the complainant’s booking was cancelled and an amount of INR 1996/- was refunded to the complainant after deduction of INR 2025/- per passenger plus INR 150/- convenience fees per passengers.  It was further stated the Opposite Party via e-mail dated 08.04.2017 clarified that the refund for cancellation of the complainant’s booking had been made in accordance with the IndiGo CoC (Annexure R-3).  Stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, the answering Opposite Party had prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 
6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party.
7. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, at the preliminary stage and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 
8. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellant, 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.
9. On perusal of the facts, it is very clear that the booking done by the respondent was cancelled 19:45 hours prior to the booked flight in question. As per the Annexure C-3, if the request for cancellation of flight is made two hours before the scheduled departure, no cancellation charges are leviable. The Opposite Party/appellant has miserably failed to produce any instructions or rule vide which they were entitled to deduct Rs.8700/- out of total fare of Rs.10,696/- paid by the respondent for four air tickets of his family members. The respondent has cancelled the air tickets much before and well in time and as such he was entitled to get reimbursement of full fair i.e. Rs.10,696/-. Keeping in view, that the respondent is an eminent doctor, Professor & Head, Department of Cardiology, Advanced Cardiac Center, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh and an world famous Cardiologist had to prepone the journey due to sickness of his son and also due to emergency professional call from his Institute at Chandigarh, the attitude of the appellant i.e. IndiGo Airlines in turning down such a genuine request for refund of the money, is highly unworthy and there is definitely deficiency on the part of the appellant. Accordingly, the said appeal is liable to be dismissed at the preliminary stage and the order of the learned Forum is upheld.
10. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant.
11.  In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the
    point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
12.  For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
13. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
14. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

 

Pronounced.

02.11.2017

                                                                                                     Sd/-

                                                                      [DEV RAJ]

PRESIDING MEMBER

                                                                                    

                                                                       Sd/-

[PADMA PANDEY]

 MEMBER

GP

 

 

STATE COMMISSION

(First Appeal No.239 of 2017)

(InterGlobe Aviation Ltd. (IndiGo) Vs. Dr. Yahspaul Sharma)

 

Argued by:

Ms. Jasdeep Kaur, Advocate for the appellant.

 

Dated the 2^nd day of November 2017

 

ORDER

              Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal filed by the appellant/Opposite Party, has been dismissed at the preliminary stage, with no order as to cost and the order passed by the District Forum, has been upheld.

 

      

               Sd/-                                        Sd/-

(DEV RAJ) PRESIDING MEMBER	(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER

 

Gp