Order No. 29 dt. 24/08/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant being a renowned sitar player authorized Sandeep Chatterjee to pursue and filed the case. it was stated that the complainant booked two airlines e-tickets for travelling from Lucknow to Pune by Go Airlines flight scheduled to fly at 8-30 hours on 4.12.10. The complainant reached the airport well in advance, but the complainant after reaching the airport became astonished to know that the flight had already departed at 6-25 hours for Pune much before the scheduled departure time. The complainant contacted the official of o.p. no.1 and came to learn that the complainant received an e-mail from the office of o.p. no.1 that the flight had been preponed and it will depart at 6-25 a.m. instead of scheduled departure time at 8-30 a.m. As per the flight schedule information by o.p. in the e-ticket that Lucknow departure time was 8-30 hours and arrival time at Pune Airport was 10-20 hours with one stop at Delhi Airport, as per the schedule the total time could not have been taken 1 hour 50 minutes. Since the complainant gave wrong information and due to such wrong information the complainant suffered loss. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. to refund of the invoice value of e-ticket of Rs.9918/- and compensation of Rs.40,000/- for making alternative arrangement and damages of Rs.5 lakhs for loss of his self esteem and hurting his self respect and damages of Rs.2 lakhs for harassment and mental agony.
The o.p. no.1 contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the case since in the e-ticket itself it was mentioned that all disputes are subject to exclusive jurisdiction of Mumbai. Since the complainant purchased the e-tickets the complainant cannot select the Forum on his own whim. It was stated that merely because the complainant purchased the e-tickets from the agent of Kolkata, no jurisdiction of Kolkata can be invoked. The complainant purchased the air e-tickets on 11.11.10 well in advance of the scheduled departure date i.e. 4.12.10. In the e-ticket itself it is mentioned that such customer confirms the departure time of the flight between 24-72 hours before the scheduled departure time by visiting the website of o.p. no.1 or by calling the call centre contact number provided in e-ticket. The complainant himself was negligent and therefore, o.p. no.o1 cannot be held that there was any negligent act done by o.p. no.1. The complainant at the time of purchasing the e-ticket provided the mobile number whereby a message was sent to the complainant informing him the preponing departure time of the said flight. The complainant did not take note of the said fact for which the complainant had to suffer. There was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of o.p. no.1 and as such, the case is to be dismissed.
In spite of receipt of notice the o.p. no.2 did not contest this case by filing w/v and as such, the case proceeded ex parte against the o.p. no.2
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant booked two e-tickets from o.p. no.2 for the journey from Lucknow to Pune?
- Whether the information of preponing the scheduled departure time of the flight was communicated to the complainant?
- Whether the complainant missed the flight because of not getting any information from o.p. no.1?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant being a reputed sitar player and he is a Padma Shri awardee booked two e-tickets from o.p. no.2 for the journey from Lucknow to Pune. The scheduled departure time of the flight was 8-30 hours, though the complainant reached the airport well in advance, but boarding pass was not issued to him and he was informed that due to preponement of the time schedule of the said flight, the flight had already departed the airport at 6-25 hours on that date. Because of such deficiency in service on the part of o.p. no.1 without giving any intimation to the complainant, the complainant has suffered loss for which the complainant filed this case praying for compensation.
Ld. lawyer for the o.p. no.1 argued that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case and in the e-ticket itself it was mentioned that in case of any dispute the jurisdiction for resolving the dispute would be in Mumbai, therefore this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case. ld. lawyer also submitted that at the time of purchasing the e-tickets the complainant provided his mobile number and in the said mobile number o.p. no.1 communicated the information regarding the preponing of the flight schedule. The complainant did not take note of changing of the departure time of the scheduled flight, therefore he suffered for which o.p. no.1 cannot be held liable and as such, the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is admitted fact that the complainant is a reputed sitar player and he purchased two e-tickets from Kolkata. As per Sec 1 (2) (c) of the C.P. Act since the complainant purchased the e-tickets from Kolkata and the part cause of acti9on arose within Kolkata, therefore this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case. So far as the point raised by o.p. no.1 is concerned that the complainant was informed regarding the preponement of the time schedule of the flight, but no cogent evidence has been provided by o.p. no.1. Though o.p. no.1 gave the mobile number of the complainant, but failed to prove that actually the said message regarding the preponement of the time schedule of the flight was communicated to the complainant. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant being a professional sitar player suffered because of non availing of the said flight for which the complainant will be entitled to get refund of the value of the e-tickets as well as compensation. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.67/2012 is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. no.1 and dismissed ex parte without cost against the o.p. no.2. The o.p. no.1 is directed to refund a sum of Rs.9918/- (Rupees nine thousand nine hundred eighteen) only towards the value of the said e-tickets to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
