Date of filing : 25.09.2017

Date of hearing :16.02.2018

       The present appeal Under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act,  1986 ( for brevity, “ the Act”) is at the instance of  complainant to  impeach the  order  No. 29 dated 24.08.2017 made by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit - I ( in short, Ld. District Forum ) in Consumer Complaint No. 67/2012. By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint lodged  by the appellant U/s. 12 of the Act with the direction upon  respondent no.1 Airlines to refund Rs.9,918/-  towards the value of the tickets, Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost.

       The appellant being complainant lodged the complaint before the Ld. District Forum asserting that two airlines e-tickets for travelling from Lucknow to Pune by Go Airlines Flight were booked from OP No.2 at  Kolkata scheduled to fly on 04.12.2010 at 8.30 hours on payment of Rs.9918/- as cost of tickets. On 04.12.2010, the complainant  reached the Airport well in advance but after reaching the Airport came to know that  the flight had already departed at 6.25 hours on 04.12.2010 for Pune much before the scheduled departure time. The complainant contacted the official of OP No.1 and came to learn that the flight had been preponed and it departed at 6.25 a.m. on 04.12.2010 instead of scheduled departure time  at  8.30a.m. The complainant alleged that  the OP did not properly informed him as to preponment of flight and neglected and refused to make any alternative arrangement.  Somehow, complainant managed to reach the destination by incurring additional expenditure of Rs.40,000/- by availing costly flight and hiring car as he  was supposed to reach on that date at Pune being a renowned Sitar Player. Hence, the appellant approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for several reliefs including refund of Rs.9918/- as value of tickets,compensation of Rs. 40,000/- , compensation of  Rs. 2,00,000/- for harassment and mental agony etc.

       The respondent no.1 being OP No.1 by filing a written version disputed the claim.

       The respondent no.2 /OP No.2 did not appear to  contest.

       After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned order allowed the complaint with certain directions upon the OPs.  Being dissatisfied with the said award, complainant has come up in this Commission with the present appeal.

       I have scrutinised the materials on record and considered the submissions advanced by  the  Advocates for the parties.   Having heard the Ld. Advocate appearing for the parties and on going through the materials on record it would reveal that the appellant is a  recognised classical artist( sitar player ) has duly authorised Shri Sandeep Chatterjee to pursue the present complaint on behalf of him by a Power of Attorney dated 30.07.2011.  Undisputedly, the appellant had booked  two airlines e-tickets ( one for him and other for his son ) with Go Airlines (India) Ltd. through respondent no.2  at Kolkata on 11.11.2010 at 11.17 a.m. in order to travel to Pune from Lucknow by Go Air Flight No.G-8352 scheduled to fly on 04.12.2010 at   8.30 a.m. On 04.12.2010, the appellant  reached the Airport well in advance and after reaching there he became surprised when he came to know that the flight had already departed at  06.25 a.m., for Pune much before  the scheduled time. The appellant had talked with the officials around 07.30 a.m. who in turn informed that the flight had been preponed and departed at 06.25 a.m.

       It is alleged  by the appellant that the respondent no.1 did not inform him about preponment of the schedule.  It is true that in order to reach  the destination, appellant had to purchase two tickets by Jet Lite from Lucknow the arrival time of which at Mumbai Airport was 16.20 hrs. for which the appellant had to incur an expenses of Rs.24,000/- odd for two tickets. However, there is no document whatsoever in which ways the appellant and his son  reached Pune from Mumbai and to that effect no document is forthcoming.

       Ld. Advocate for the appellant has submitted that  the complainant/appellant incurred litigation cost to a huge amount for pendency of the proceeding for about five years and the cost awarded of Rs.2000/- is too small to match the expenses incurred. He has also submitted  that the Ld . District Forum did not consider the additional expenses of Rs. 40,000/- for making alternative arrangement to reach the destination at Pune. He has also submitted that the appellant is a high ranked Sitarist and public figure  and could not keep his commitment to attend the scheduled programme in public shows.

       Ld. Advocate for the  respondent no.1 refuted the contention of Ld. Advocate for the appellant and submitted that the Ld. District Forum was quite justified in assessing the compensation  and as such the impugned order should not be interfered with.

       After giving due  consideration to the submission made by  the Ld. Advocates for the parties it appears to me that the appellant has failed to show any document that  on 04.12.2010 the appellant  has failed to keep his promise to attend the public shows at Pune. The appellant has also failed to produce any document regarding the expenditure incurred by him  for undertaking the journey from  Mumbai to Pune. It is true that due to preponment of flight G – 8352 at 06.25 a.m. on 04.12.2010 the appellant had to avail Jet Lite Flight for Mumbai to reach Pune and for that  the appellant had to incur an expenses of Rs.24,000/- and odd.

        Considering the above,  the Ld. District Forum not only directed the respondent no.1/OP No.1 to refund Rs. 9918/- towards the value of the tickets but also awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- and as such I do not find any illegality or shortcoming in passing the order impugned.

       However, the Ld. District Forum should have taken into consideration that the proceeding was pending before the Ld. District Forum for about 5 years and during such pendency of the litigation, appellant had to incur huge expenses. Keeping in view of the same, the Ld. District Forum should have imposed a litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- at least. Therefore,  that part of the order should be modified only.

       Consequently,  the impugned order is modified only to the extent that instead of Rs. 2,000/- the appellant /complainant is entitled  to litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- which must be paid within  30 days from date otherwise  the amount shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from date till its recovery. The other part of the order is maintained.

       With the above observations and direction,  the appeal stands disposed of.

       The Registrar of the Commission  is directed to send a copy of the order to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit – I for information.