Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/153/2022

Vishal - Complainant(s)

Versus

IXIGO - Opp.Party(s)

Abhishek Kaushik

16 Oct 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/153/2022
Date of Institution	:	2.2.2022
Date of Decision	:	16/10/2023

 

Vishal son of Ashok Kumar resident of H. No.237-A, Tribune colony Baltana, Punjab.

 

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. IXIGO through its CEO & Co-Founder Aloke Bajpai, CEO &Co-Founder Ixigo 306-310, Naurang House 3^rd floor 21 KG Marg New Delhi.
2. Spicejet Ltd. through its Nodal Officer MS. Tina Sethi 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase IV, Gurgaon Haryana 122016.
3. Liberty General Insurance Ltd. (through its Managing Director) SCO 145-146, 2^nd floor Sector 9-C, Near By Axis Bank, Chandigarh 160009.

.  … Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY		Sh. D.D. Sharma, Advocate proxy for Sh. Abhishek Kaushik, Advocate for complainant.
		OP No.1 ex-parte
		Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for OP No.2
		Sh. Sachin Gupta, Advocate proxy for Sh. Sachin Ohri, Advocate for OP No.3.

Per SURJEET KAUR, Member

     Briefly stated the complainant booked  air ticket of OP No.2  through OP No.1 by paying Rs.20,354/-  from New Delhi to Pakyong and for return back from Pakyong to New Delhi. The said trip was insured by OP No.3 vide  travel package policy Annexure C-1. It is alleged that on 15.8.2021 when the complainant was about to board the flight from New Delhi Airport he came to know that the scheduled flight has been cancelled and the OP No.2 gave option of full refund or alternative flight. Left with no other option the complainant had to board the alternative flight.  Thereafter when the complainant enquired about the return flight he was shocked to know that the same has also been cancelled and the complainant was given option of a rescheduled flight for 21.8.2021  and as such the complainant had to overstay there but the said rescheduled  flight was also cancelled and the complainant had to book another flight from another airlines. The OPs initiated refund of Rs.7753/- for the return trip on 1.9.2021. But out of the total amount of Rs.20,354/-, Rs.8720/- was deducted as cancellation fee and Rs.3881/- as non-refundable charges though the OPs airlines assured full refund.  The complainant also submitted insurance claim with the OP No.3 but the same was refused by it.  The complainant sent legal notice dated 7.10.2021 to the OPs but to no avail.   Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed

2. The Opposite Parties NO.2 in its reply stated that the complainant booked a ticket for two persons from Delhi to Pakyong and back. It is averred that Pakyong airport is a very strategically located airport i.e. between high mountains and a sudden disturbance in weather makes the landing to and take off from the said airport very-very dangerous for the aircraft, crew and passengers and when the weather is inclement particularly in monsoon months i.e. in the months of July to September, every year, there are a lot of cases of flight cancellation in the said sector on account of bad weather. It is submitted that in this case also, since the complainant travelled in the month of August, 2021, the flight got cancelled due to Bad Weather. It is averred that the OP No. 2 can operate the aircraft i.e. take off and land only at the instructions of ATC. In the present case, since the ATC did not permit the OP No. 2 to land and take off on the relevant dates, on account of bad weather, the flight in question had to be cancelled. Thus, the flight was cancelled due to unforeseeable circumstances hence no deficiency in services or negligence on the part of the answering OP. It is further averred that since the answering OP has already remitted the part ticket amount to the complainant thus, the complaint is not maintainable. All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
3. OP No.1 did not turn up despite due service, hence vide order dated 7.02.2023 it was proceeded against exparte.
4. OP No.3 in its reply while denying all the allegations leveled in the complaint stated that the complainant has made allegations to the effect that the flight was rescheduled/cancelled by the OP No.2 airlines and the said airlines is not under the control of the answering OP and the answering OP is not responsible for cancellation or modification of the flight by the airlines. It is further averred that the flight was cancelled by the airlines and  as per the terms and conditions of policy the case of the complainant does not fall under the category of Trip Cancellation Extension Coverage as the flight was  not delayed but was cancelled and rescheduled by the OP No.2. It is averred that there is no deficiency on the part of the answering OP.
5. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated
6. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
8. As per case of the complainant it is evident from Annexure C-3 that the complainant purchased the air ticket to travel from New Delhi to Pakyong and to return and the air travel  was duly insured with OP No.3. The grievance of the complainant is that the  flight of the said trip was cancelled and the complainant had to take  alternative flight but the OPs did not provide any facility as promised and left the complainant to suffer in the mid of the trip and even did not refund the complete amount of the air ticket, which caused immense mental trauma and harassment to the complainant. 
9. Admittedly the flights which were scheduled  for the trip in question were cancelled due to bad weather as a result of which the complainant had to suffer a lot and had to board alternative flights during the trip and had to overstay against his wish and requirement by spending additional amount just because of negligent attitude of OPs.
10. Annexure R-1 is the terms and conditions of the Carriage the relevant clause 58 whereof is reproduced as under:-

“58. Flight Cancellations

SpiceJet will make all reasonable efforts to ensure timely operations of its scheduled unforeseen circumstances may cause a delay or cancellation of its scheduled operations:

1.   Passenger(s) who have provided correct and working mobile number or e-mail at the time of reservation and have been informed at least two weeks before the scheduled time of departure shall be entitled for an alternate flight/refund as acceptable to the them. However, in case, the passengers are informed of the cancellation less than two weeks before and up to 24 hours of the scheduled time of departure, SpiceJet shall offer alternate flight allowing them to depart within two (02) hours of their initially booked scheduled time of departure.

2.   Passengers who have not been informed as per the above provision(s), or missed a connecting flight booked on the same PNR number of SpiceJet flight, SpiceJet shall either provide an alternate flight as acceptable to the passenger or provide compensation in addition to the full refund of the air ticket in accordance with the compensation provided by SpiceJet, in addition to the refund of air ticket is mentioned below:

          1. INR 5,000 or booked one-way basic fare plus airline fuel charge, whichever is less for flights having a block time of 01 hour or less.

          2. INR 7,500 or booked one-way basic fare plus airline fuel charge, whichever is less for flights having block time of more than 01 hour and up to and including 02 hours.

          3.INR 10,000 or booked one-way basic fare plus airline fuel charge, whichever is less for flights having a block time of more than 02 hours.

3.   In case of the offered flight to/from an airport or terminal other than the one customer has booked SpiceJet shall bear the cost of transfer to/from the alternate airport or terminal from/ to the one for which the ticket has been booked. If the passenger has been informed of the change at least 6 hours in advance, the passenger shall be responsible for making his/her own arrangements.”

 

11. As per the aforesaid clause of the terms and conditions of the Carriage the complainant was entitled for all the facility as quoted in the aforesaid terms and conditions but the OPs No.2 utterly failed to abide by their own terms and conditions as they failed to provide any facility or help to the complainant on cancellation of the flight thereby left the complainant to suffer mental agony and harassment. Even the complainant had to bear the cost of overstay at his own. Thus, deficiency on the part of OP No.2 is writ large.
12. Not only this as per page 68 of the reply of OP No.3 the policy document, the trip was duly insured with OP No.3 the relevant para of the relevant   condition of the policy under head N. Notification of claims is reproduced as under:-

“Upon the happening of any event rise or likely to give rise to a claim under this policy, the insured/insured person(s) shall give immediate notice to the Us/Claims Administrator by calling toll free number.”

 

13. In the instant case the complainant had made several calls to the OP No.3 on the toll free number which  fact is  corroborated from Annexure C-7 annexed with the rejoinder by the complainant. Thus, the OP No.3 is also deficient in rendering proper service.
14. In view of the foregoing we are of the opinion that that it was the bounden duty of the OPs No.2 to provide every help and facility to its customer in the event of cancellation of flight in every circumstances, but as is evident from record the OPs No.2 had failed to provide any facility to the  complainant to mitigate the difficulties faced by him in the mid of the trip. The minimum facility expected from the OP Airlines was to maintain an effective communication with their own passengers on minute to minute basis and try to make them comfortable in every possible manner under the given circumstances. The OPs NO.2 should have made arrangements for the stay and transport of the complainant.  which they miserably failed to do so  and even did not take care of basic needs of the complainant. On the other hand the OP No.3 the insurance company failed to render proper service to the complainant even after numerous calls made by the complainant on its toll free number, thus the aforesaid act of OPs No.2&3 tantamounts to deficiency in service and they are liable to compensate the complainant for the same.
15. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs No.2&3 are jointly and severally directed as under:-

1. to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
2. to pay Rs.5500/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

16.      This order be complied with by the OPs No.2&3 within forty five days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.
17. Complaint against OP No.1 stands dismissed.
18. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
19.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member   Sd/-
16/10/2023			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member