Haryana

StateCommission

A/369/2020

PAWAN SINGLA - Complainant(s)

Versus

GO AIRLINES INDIA LTD. AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

GAUTAM KAILEY

05 Oct 2020

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.    369 of 2020

Date of Institution:  29.09.2020

Date of Decision:    05.10.2020

 

Pawan Singla son of Shri Mangal Ram, resident of House No.1396, Sector 9, Ambala City, District Ambala, Haryana.

Appellant-Complainant

Versus

1.      Go Airlines India Ltd., 1^st Floor, C-I, Wadia International Center (WIC), Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli Mumbai-400025 through            its Director/M.D. Authorized Signatory.

2.      Go Airlines India Ltd., Regd. Office: C/o Britannia Industries Ltd., A-o 83, Lawrence Road Industrial Area, New Delhi-110035                 through its Authorized Signatory.

3.      Seven Seaz Vacations Pvt. Ltd., H-5, South Extension Part-1, New Delhi-110049.

          Second Address: 31, Bhagat Singh Market, Near Gole Market, New Delhi, Delhi 110001.

4.      M/s Mittal Cell Point, Khera Bazar, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar through its Proprietor/partner/Authorized Signatory.

Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:    Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Shri Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial Member.              

   

Present:     Shri Gautam Kailey, counsel for the appellant.                                 

                            

O R D E R

T.P.S. MANN, J.

          Delay in filing/re-filing of the appeal is condoned for the reasons as specified in the miscellaneous application.

2.      Complainant Pawan Singla had filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, whereby he sought directions to opposite parties to pay him a sum of Rs.3,61,100/- on account of deficiency in service, mental agony, pain, suffering and harassment besides legal expenses.

3.      Vide order dated 31.01.2020, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, dismissed the complaint qua opposite parties No.1 to 3. However, the complaint was partly accepted against opposite party No.4 holding it liable to pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant, in the form of punitive damages for causing overhead losses such as mental agony, humiliation, economic losses and litigation charges to be paid within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order and in addition to it, opposite party No.4 was liable to pay interest @ 7% per annum from the date of order till actual realization and in addition to the same, provisions of Section 25/27 of the Act to be enforced against the said opposite party in order to enforce the order.

4.      The complainant has filed the instant appeal with a prayer that the order dated 31.01.2020 be modified and the complaint be allowed with costs, compensation and interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint.

5.      According to the complainant, he was to perform air journey from Bagdogra to New Delhi by Go Airlines India Ltd. on 13.09.2016, for which, he booked his air ticket. As per the itinerary, the complainant were to be provided veg combo box in the form of meal but the same was not provided during performance of air journey despite the fact that he had paid extra charges for the same and not providing of meal to the complainant as per itinerary schedule, made the complainant aggrieved and according to him due to deficiency and negligence in service at the hands of the opposite parties, he suffered mental agony and harassment. He was to take medicine prior to the meal and also after the meal. The staff of the Airlines did not pay any heed to his just and genuine demands. He expressed his grievance through e-mails to the opposite parties but his grievance was not redressed by the opposite parties and accordingly he filed the complaint.

6.      Upon notice, the Airlines-opposite parties No.1 and 2 filed their written version. Though they did not dispute their air journey by the complainant on the scheduled date but denied liability on their part on the ground that no itinerary schedule was attached with the tickets and schedule of itinerary was also not forwarded to them. Fault, if any, was of opposite parties No.3 and 4. On receipt of complaint from the complainant, the Airlines also investigated the matter and conveyed the finding to the complainant, which is reflected from their communication.

7.      Opposite party No.4 in its written version took the same stand as opposite parties No.1 and 2. It also refunded refreshment charges to the complainant. As regards opposite party No.4, it failed to put in appearance either in person or through any Advocate.

8.      The complainant and also opposite parties No.1 and 2 had concluded their arguments on 27.01.2020. In order to avoid any sort of prejudice being caused to opposite party No.4, the proceedings were adjourned to 29.01.2020 for appearance of opposite party No.4 or its counsel. Despite the same, opposite party No.4 failed to appear before the District Forum or through any Advocate.

9.      Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record, the District Forum partly allowed the complaint against opposite party No.4, as mentioned above, but dismissed the same against opposite parties No.1 to 3.

10.    By way of the present appeal, the complainant is seeking enhancement of compensation along with higher rate of interest besides costs to be paid to him.

11.    Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in their written version, opposite parties No.1 and 2 did not dispute that as per the itinerary schedule, the complainant was to be provided refreshment/meal of veg combo box but this itinerary schedule was not forwarded to the Airlines, which refused to provide the meal to the appellants. Opposite parties No.1 and 2 while filing their written version had taken a false and fabricated stand, whereas, the fact remains that the itinerary schedule was conveyed and forwarded to them at the time of booking of air tickets by the complainant. Therefore, the appeal be accepted, complaint be accepted and opposite parties No.1 and 2 be directed to pay the sum of money as claimed by the complainant.

12.    Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and on going through the impugned order, the State Commission finds that opposite parties No.1 and 2 had taken specific stand that the itinerary schedule requiring providing of refreshment/meal of veg combo box to the complainant was not forwarded to the Airlines and accordingly requisite meal could not be provided to the appellant. As such, there was no fault of opposite parties No.1 and 2 in providing the refreshment/meal of veg combo box. The fault, if any, was on the part of opposite parties No.3 and 4. Opposite parties No.1 and 2 had also got investigated the matter wherein it was found that they were not responsible for providing the refreshment/meal to the complainant. According to the complainant/appellant, he was to take the medication once before taking the meal and once after taking the meal. The complainant had not become unwell or required any hospitalization on account of not being provided with the refreshment/meal during the flight from Bagdogra to New Delhi. Merely because the complainant was patient of diabetes, hypertension and heart diseases, no case is made out for awarding him compensation, as claimed by him in his complaint. 

13.    In view of the above, no case is made out for any interference in the impugned order passed by the District Forum. The appeal is without any merit and therefore dismissed.

 

Announced 05.10.2020

(Harnam Singh Thakur) Judicial Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

  D.R.