Delhi

North

CC/110/2022

SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

GO AIRLINES INDIA LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

30 May 2023

ORDER

       District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

Consumer Complaint No. 110/2022

In the matter of

Subhash Chandra Agrawal      

1775, Kucha Lattushah

Dariba Chandni Chowk

Delhi-110006                                                                           ... Complainant

Versus

Go Airlines (India) Limited

First floor, C-1, Wadia International Centre (WIC)

Pandarung Budhkar Marg, Worli

Mumbai-400025                                                                    …Opposite Party

ORDER
30/05/2023

Ms.Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member

Jurisdiction of this Commission has been invoked by Sh.Subhash Chandra Agrawal, the complainant, against Go Airlines (India) Ltd, the Opposite Party (OP), with the allegations of deficiency in services and unfair trade practice.

1. Initially the complainant had arrayed Department of Consumer Affairs (Union Ministry of Consumer Affair) and Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) as opposite party no. 2 & 3.   However, they were deleted from the array of parties vide order dated 30/05/2022. 
2. Facts necessary for the disposal of the present complaint are that the complainant, a senior citizen and RTI consultant travelled on 29/10/2018 by Go Air, Flight No.145 from Delhi to Ranchi vide PNR No.DE164B.  It has been stated by the complainant that he had pre booked the meal in flight and had opted for combo of Popcorn-Lays-Juice out of the four options available. The complainant was requested to opt for some other options as the popcorn were not available.  
3. As stated in the complaint, the request to substitute the Popcorn with Cashew-nuts which were of the same price of Rs.150/- was declined by the flight head namely, Mr .Kurush showing the terms and conditions mentioned in fine print subject to availability. As per the complainant, Indigo has better options where the consumers can select any of the listed drink-item and food-item irrespective of price.  
4. The complainant has alleged that the Menu Card of the OP offers the packaged food items like Paper boat and aerated beverages at highly exorbitant price than the price available in the market for drinks which are priced at Rs.100/- each.  The complainant got his return flight from Ranchi to Delhi cancelled due to the behaviour of the attendant staff of the OP. 
5. On 01/11/2018, 29/11/2018 and 16/12/2018 the complainant also lodged a complaint with Department of Consumer Affairs and Union Ministry of Civil Aviation through www.pgportal.gov.in, www.helpline.rb.nic.in etc. 
6. The complainant has prayed for directions to  OP to:

1. Return the cost of the food,
2.  Compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental agony, man hours involved and cost incurred;
3.  Litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-
4. Prevent from printing MRP in excess on food items sold in flight much higher than the MRP printed on same commodity in general market.
5.  Flexibility in option for paid food, coupon like Indigo Airlines  

7. The complainant has annexed the printout of the ticket dated 29/10/2018 with booking reference No.DE164B as Annexure-1, Boarding pass as Annexure-2, Printout reflecting the choice of meal as Annexure-3, the menu card as Annexure-4 & Annexure-5, complaint made to the Union Ministry of Consumer Affairs and DGCA as Annexure-6 to Annexure-8, guidelines issued by Department of Consumer Affairs dated 21/04/2017 w.r.t. service charge by hotel/restaurant Annexure-9 and action taken details as Annexure-10 and Annexure-11. The complainant has also annexed an email dated 02/11/2018 as Annexure-12.
8. Notice of the present complaint was issued to Go Air (OP). Written statement was filed on their behalf where they have taken several preliminary objections such as the complainant had not approached the Commission with clean hand; there was no deficiency in services, the complaint was false and frivolous.   They have further objected that the complaint was barred by limitation as per the period prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
9. It has been submitted that the OP has complied with all the rules framed under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and the products are sold as per the MRP printed on the label.   They have further submitted that the dual pricing of the same product is permissible under the law, thus there was no unfair trade practice on their part.  Rest of the contents of the complaint have been denied with the prayer for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.
10. Rejoinder to the written statement of the OP was filed by the complainant where the content of the complaint have been repeated and those of the written statement have been denied.  It has been stated that the original complaint was filed on 24/06/2019 but the same could not be traced by the office of the Commission, hence the file was restructured.
11. The complainant requested that the affidavit filed along with the complaint may be treated as Evidence by way of affidavit, his request was allowed vide order dated 02/08/2022.  
12. OP has got examined Sh.Vishal Mathur, DGM Legal on their behalf.  It has been admitted that the complainant had travelled on 29/10/2018 vide flight NO.145 from Delhi to Ranchi, PNR No.DE164B.  It has been reiterated that the cause of action arose on 29/10/2018 however, the complaint was filed on 06/05/2022 which is beyond the period of two years as prescribed under section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
13. We have heard the submission made by the Ld. Counsel for OP and have perused the material placed on record.  The complainant had requested for deciding the complaint on merits vide application dated 04/01/2023. 
14. Firstly, deciding whether the present complaint has been filed within the period of limitation as prescribed under section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  It is seen that the date of travel is 29/10/2018, thus the cause of action first arose on 29/10/2018, when the complainant was denied replacement of cashew nuts. Thus, the complaint should have been filed within 02 years i.e. on or before 28/10/2020.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court in suo motu Writ PETITION (C) NO.3 OF 2020 In RE: Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation has issued following directions :-
    1.  
    2.  
    3.  
    4.  

In the instant case, the period of limitation would have expired on 28.10.2020, however, as per the directions issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court in SUO motu Writ PETITION (C) NO.3 OF 2020 (supra) the complainant was still left with a period of 07 months 13 days from 01/03/202, thus the instant complaint could have been filed on or before 14/10/2022.The date of institution of the present complaint is 06/05/2022 which is well within the period of limitation. Therefore, this issue is decided against the OP.

15. The case of the complainant is that he had pre-booked meal with option of Popcorn-Lays-Juice.  In para 4 of the complaint, the complainant has alleged that he has requested to change unavailable Popcorn with Cashew nut as both had the same price of Rs.150/-,  OP has not specifically denied the said allegation in their written statement, in that case it is deemed admission on the part of OP.  Even in the Annexure 12, Email dated 02/11/2018, which is from the GoAir feedback (Annexure-4 & Annexure-5) . This act/omission on the part of the OP amounts to deficiency in services. 
16. As far as clause d of the prayer is concerned the complainant has filed the photographs of the menu where the price printed for Paper Boat is Rs.100/- however, the MRP is not visible on the pack.  Hence, the complainant has not been able to prove his allegations.  Similarly, the relief claimed under clause e is concerned, it is the sole the business strategy of the respective airlines and issuance of such direction do not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present complaint and in the interest of justice, we direct OP to refund the cost of the Popcorn which were not provided to the complainant alongwith compensation of Rs.7,500/- on account of mental agony and harassment inclusive of litigation expenses. 

The order be complied within 30 days from the receipt of this order, in case of non compliance, OP shall be liable to pay an interest @7% on Rs.7,500/- from the date of order till realisation.

Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules.  Order be also uploaded on the website.  Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

(Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

President