BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
CACHAR :: SILCHAR
Con. Case No. 22 of 2015
Sri Saral Chandra Paul, ……………………………………….. Complainant.
-V/S-
1. The In-Charge-Officer, Corporate Office,
Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd.,
(IRCTC), 9th Floor, Bank Baroda Building,
16, Parliament Street, P.O. New Delhi-110001 O.P No.1.
2. The In-Charge-Officer, Corporate Office,
Corporate Office, Indigo (Airline), Level-1, Tower-C
Global Business Park, Mehrauli- Guragaon Road,
P.O. Gurgaon-122002, Haryana. O.P No.2.
Present: - Sri Bishnu Debnath, President,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Mrs. Chandana Purkayastha, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Shri Kamal Kumar Sarda, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Appeared :- Sri Saral Chandra Paul, complainant self
None is appeared for O.Ps.
Date of Evidence……………………….. 30-12-2015, 23-06-2017
Date of oral argument………………….. 27-07-2017
Date of judgment………………………. 08-08-2017
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Sri Bishnu Dednath,
- This case is brought U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. (in short IRCTC) and against the Indigo Airlines for award of compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- (One Lac Fifty Thousand) only.
- He stated inter-alia the following facts:-
He purchased e-ticket from O.P No.1 IRCTC on 26-08-2013 for journey by Indigo flight on schedule date on 25-09-2013 from Bangalore to Agartala. Price of the ticket was Rs.4,611/- and PNR was Z1K655. The travel route was point to point with one stop at Guwahati. But subsequently due to hospitalization cause he was necessitated to get down at Guwahati. Accordingly, by e-mail correspondence with O.P No.1 requested to modify his journey and allow him to get down at Guwahati and also expressed not to demand for refund of fare for segment from Guwahati to Agartala. But the O.P No.1 replied to approach O.P No.2. Accordingly, made correspondence to O.P No.2 but in vain.
- Finding no suitable result he came to the check-in-counter on the schedule date of journey and requested the officer-in-charge of Indigo Airlines at Bangalore Airport but the said officer did not respond. Hence, he was compelled to obtain Boarding Pass for journey destination at Agartala from Bangalore and reached at Agartala.
- On 09-11-2013 send pleader notice to O.P No.1 and O.P.No.2. The O.P No.2 did not respond but O.P No.1 in the written reply dated 12-12-2013 stated inter-alia that there was no enabling provision in the terms and conditions to permit break journey and action if any can be taken by the concerned Airlines after issue of ticket.
- However, notice of this case issued to O.Ps but none of the O.Ps submitted any written objection. Accordingly, the complainant adduced evidence and exhibited 6 (Six) documents including e-Ticket, Boarding Pass, Pleader Notice, reply of O.P No.1 and e-mail correspondent. The O.Ps did neither appear nor take part in hearing. Hence, we have heard the complainant in absence of the O.Ps.
- In this case from evidence on record, it is clear that the Complainant purchased e-Ticket for journey from Bangalore to Agartala and schedule date of journey was 25-09-2013. It is also revealed from exhibited document that ticket status was confirm and PNR was Z1K655 of Indigo flight No. 6E-457. It is also cleared from evidence on record that the flight was not cancelled and reached to Agartala from Bangalore via halt at Guwahati. This is also clear that the Claimant tried to modify his journey from Bangalore to Guwahati without demand of refund fare for journey from Guwahati to Agartala but the O.P did not make any arrangement for the Complainant.
- However, from Ext.6 reply of the pleader notice, it is revealed that the plea of the O.P No.1 is that no break journey was permitted as there is no express provision in the terms and conditions of Indigo Airlines. However, in the Ext.6 it is also mentioned by O.P No.1 that discretion is lying with the Indigo Airlines. However, from evidence on record, it is crystal clear that the Indigo Airlines did not exercise the discretion as stated by the O.P No.1.
- Now, question as whether the Airlines authorities can be compelled to exercise its discretion to allow modification of Air Ticket and allow the complainant to get down at Guwahati when ticket booked for point to point from Bangalore to Agartala.
- As a principle of justice, equity and good consciousness an authority cannot be compelled to apply its discretionary power. Of course, there are many case laws available to give guideline to exercise discretionary power, which means, if the discretionary power exercise it must be exercise in a judicious manner and must not be exercise capriciously or arbitrarily. But there is now law to compel to exercise discretionary power.
- In the instant case, also nothing found regarding any express provision to apply discretionary power to allow modification. For which if the Indigo Airlines did not allow modification, it cannot be said that the Airlines authority was liable for disservice or deficiency of service. Of course, the complainant could break his journey in other manner, i.e. by cancelling the e-ticket from Bangalore to Agartala and booking a fresh e-ticket from Bangalore to Guwahati with the prevailing price and payment of cancellation charge as per rules. But he did not avail the said remedy for the reasons best known to him
- Hence, in this case, we do not find any causation amounting to disservice or deficiency of service of O.Ps. Thus, this District Consumer Forum is not inclined to grant any relief to the Complainant. Accordingly, this case is dismissed without any cost. Supply free certified copy of judgment to the parties.
Given under the hand of the President and Members of this District Forum and seal of the Office of the District Forum on this the 8th day of August, 2017.
