Heard. 2. Facts in brief are that, petitioner/complainant had a ticket to travel by ‘Go Airlines’ respondent on 30.1.2007. The departure time of the aircraft at Mumbai was at 2.15 p.m. reaching Delhi at around 5.50 p.m. Petitioner reached the airport but was informed by the airline staff that flight has been delayed. Later on, the staff informed the petitioner that flight will take off at 5.30 p.m. Again, petitioner was informed that flight has been further delayed by one hour. Ultimately, plane arrived at 6.50 p.m. and she reached Delhi at about 11.15 p.m., as against the schedule time of 5.50 p.m. Petitioner’s grouse is that she and other co-passengers were exhausted and most of them went back to their houses. She had to wait at the lounge during the stay period and there was no arrangement for drinking water, refreshment etc. A representation to this effect was also submitted by the passengers including petitioner, to the airport authorities on the same day at Mumbai itself. Petitioner has thus charged the respondent with deficiency in service and filed a complaint before the District Forum, praying that respondent be directed to refund her Rs.3,975/- the fare of the air ticket, Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.11,000/- as cost. 3. Respondent opposed the claim and in its written reply pleaded that the flight was re-scheduled on account of operational problem, for the reason that there was a bird-hit incident of aircraft at Delhi, due to which the said aircraft was grounded, as a result of which number of flights were re-scheduled. Thus, delay was beyond the control of respondent. Therefore, respondent airlines cannot be held liable for such an incident. Further, in the Citizen Charter it has been provided that in case of circumstances beyond respondent’s airlines control, it may delay or cancel a flight. In case the flight is delayed beyond nine hours, respondent gives full refund for the booking. When the departure time was re-scheduled from 1450 hours to 1730 hours, passengers were promptly informed on phone, including the husband of the petitioner, who had purchased the ticket for the petitioner, who in turn had replied that he would inform the petitioner about the same. Since, respondent airline is not a luxury airline and provide services at the cheapest rate to make travel affordable for the common man, it does not supply any food items or refreshment inside the airlines on free basis. For this reason and also because petitioner had to wait for an hour only as she was informed in advance about the initial delay from 1450 hours to 1730 hours, respondent was not obliged to provide her food or refreshment. Respondent has denied any negligence on its part. 4. District Forum, vide its order dated 9.5.2008 dismissed the complaint holding that there is no deficiency on the part of the respondent as flight was delayed on account of circumstances beyond the control of the respondent. 5. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which concurred with the findings of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal. 6. Main limb of petitioner’s argument is that no prior information of delay of the flight was given to her. Secondly, petitioner and other co-passengers suffered physically and mentally due to callous and insidious attitude of the respondents. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. 7. Both fora below have given a finding of fact that respondent had to delay the flight due to the circumstances beyond its control since there was a bird hit incident of the aircraft. 8. Under these circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that both the fora below rightly held that there has been no deficiency on the part of the respondents. Thus, no jurisdictional or legal error has been shown to us to call for interference in the exercise of powers under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, since impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction. 9. Hence, present revision petition being not maintainable is hereby dismissed. 10. No order as to cost. |
