STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

             UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

Kingfisher Airlines Ltd., Kingfisher House, West Express Highway, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400099 through authorized representative. 

                                   .…Appellant

                 Vs.

1.  Jagroop Kaur wife of Iqbal Singh

2.  Iqbal Singh son of Bishan Singh

3.  Dr. Upneet Lalli daughter of Iqbal Singh

All  residents of H.No.234, Sector 18, Chandigarh.

                                   …. Respondents 

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

         MRS. NEENA SANDHU,    MEMBER

         SHRI JAGROOP SINGH,   MEMBER

Present:  Sh.Y.S.Dhillon, Advocate for the Appellant.

Sh.Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the Respondents.

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

          This is an appeal filed by the appellant/opposite party No.1 against the order, dated 20.06.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) in complaint case No. 601 of 2010 vide which, it accepted the complaint of the complainants (now respondents) and directed the OP No.1-Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. (now appellant) and OP No.2 (in the complaint) in the as under:-

“As a result of the above discussion, this complaint is accepted and OPs No.1 and 2 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- to the complainants as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.15,000/- as costs of litigation, within one month  from the date of receipt of the certified copy”.

2.       In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainants planned a trip to Srinagar and for this purpose approached M/s Bajaj Travels Ltd. (OP No.3 in the complaint) who is carrying on its business of travel booking at Chandigarh.  It was stated that they got booked tickets of Kingfisher Airlines through M/s Bajaj Travels Ltd. with the assurance that comfortable and hassle free travel would be provided. It was further stated that after the trip while they were returning from Srinagar for Chandigarh on 24.10.2009, the above said flight which was scheduled to depart from Srinagar to Jammu was cancelled without any prior intimation and due to cancellation, they had to stay back at Srinagar without proper arrangements and thus they faced a lot of inconvenience. It was further stated that despite numerous requests Kingfisher Airlines did not arrange flight from Srinagar to Chandigarh for the next day and, ultimately, they had to purchase tickets of Spice Jet for 25.10.2009, from Srinagar to Jammu, in the sum of Rs.3200/- per person and expenses thereof were reimbursed later on. It was further stated that due to the cancellation of flight, the complainants had to bear miscellaneous expenses, like travel through taxi from Jammu Airport to Chandigarh but the OPs did not accept their genuine demand of paying them the compensation. It was further stated that the OPs were deficient, in rendering service, as also, indulged into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainants was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.

3.       In their written reply, OPs No.1 and 2 stated that the flight was cancelled at the last minute due to technical reasons which were beyond their control and, thus, the complainants could not be intimated regarding cancellation of flight in advance. It was further stated that after the cancellation of flight all the passengers were given option for full refund or free rescheduling in the next available flights subject to availability of seats, but the complainants preferred for full refund. They were accordingly refunded the full fare as per the policy of the OPs. It was further stated that the seats, on any other Airlines could not be provided, to the complainants because there was no other direct flight to Chandigarh.  It was further stated that, the OPs were neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.       OP No.3 in its reply admitted that the complainants got booked the air tickets, for the journey aforesaid through it. It denied that it was deficient in rendering service or indulged into unfair trade practice.

5.       The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6.       After hearing the Counsel for the parties and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, allowed the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

7.       Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/OP.

8.       We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 

9.       The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the flight from Srinagar to Chandigarh was scheduled to depart on 24.10.2009, but the same was cancelled, at the last moment, due to some technical reasons, which were beyond its control. After the cancellation of flight, all the passengers were given option for full refund/free re-scheduling in the next available flight subject to the availability of seats but the respondents/complainants preferred full refund and the same was paid to them as per the policy of the Company, but the District Forum ignored all these facts, while allowing the complaint. It was further submitted that the District Forum passed the impugned order by ignoring the fact that there was no evidence or any justification in support of the allegations of the respondents/complainants, that they had to suffer mental agony, harassment etc. due to the cancellation of flight at the end of the appellant.  It was further submitted that the said flight was cancelled on detection of mechanical failure, which is evident from the report dated 28.01.2011  (Annexure A-I) given by the Manager, MCC, Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. whereas the District Forum ignored the same and observed that the appellant/OP had not adduced any evidence, as to why the flight was cancelled.

10.      The Counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents/complainants planned a trip to Srinagar and for this purpose, they approached M/s Bajaj Travels Ltd. which is carrying on the business of travel booking.  It was further submitted that they got booked the tickets of Kingfisher Airlines, through M/s Bajaj Travels Ltd. with the assurance that comfortable and hassle free travel would be provided. It was further submitted that after the trip while the respondents were returning from Srinagar to Chandigarh on 24.10.2009, the flight which was scheduled to depart from Srinagar for Jammu was cancelled without any prior intimation and due to cancellation, the complainants had to stay back at Srinagar without proper arrangements, and, thus, they faced a lot of inconvenience. It was further submitted that despite numerous requests, the appellant even did not arrange flight from Srinagar to Chandigarh for the next day and ultimately, they had to purchase tickets of Spice Jet for 25.10.2009 from Srinagar to Jammu in the sum of Rs.3200/- per person and expenses thereof were reimbursed later on by the appellant. It was further submitted that due to cancellation of flight, the respondents had to bear miscellaneous expenses like travel through taxi from Jammu Airport to Chandigarh and, thus, suffered a lot of physical harassment, mental agony, inconvenience and discomfort but the appellant did not accept their genuine demand of paying the compensation. It was further submitted that the District Forum rightly awarded the compensation, and its order is liable to be upheld.

11.      From the perusal of the e-mail dated 28.01.2011  (Annexure-I) written by the Manager, MCC Kingfisher  Airlines Ltd.,  it is evident that the aircraft’s main wheel was deflated at Jammu and due to the non-availability of the spare parts at Jammu and Delhi, the same led to the cancellation of the said flight. In our opinion, in the first instance, this e-mail dated 28.01.2011 was apparently fabricated after the filing of complaint on 04.10.2010, though the flight was cancelled on 24.10.2009. Secondly, it was not supported by the affidavit of the Mechanical Engineer who prepared the same. Thirdly, no supporting evidence was produced by OP No.1 that the aircraft was being maintained properly all the times. Fourthly, the appellant failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove that the said aircraft was properly checked before the flight took off, from Delhi, for Srinagar and OK report was duly issued by the technical expert. Fifthly, no evidence was produced by the appellant to prove, as to why, the spare parts were not available at Delhi and Jammu.  Thus, taking all these factors into consideration, we are of the view that the District Forum had not committed any error by not considering the e-mail dated 28.01.2011 (Annexure-1) for rendering the decision.

12.      It is true that after the cancellation of flight, the appellant offered the tickets to the complainants for the next flight but the same was subject to the availability of seats.  Whereas it was the bounden duty of the appellant to arrange confirmed tickets for the respondents for their hassle free journey, but it failed to do so. In this situation, the respondents were left with no other alternative than to ask for refund of fare. They were accordingly refunded the fare. The complainants were forced to make the arrangements themselves for air ticket of another Airlines from Srinagar to Jammu. From Jammu to Chandigarh, they had to travel by taxi.  This all caused a tremendous physical harassment, untold mental agony, a lot of inconvenience and discomfort to them.  The District Forum rightly allowed the complaint, but in our considered opinion, the compensation awarded for mental agony, physical harassment, discomfort and inconvenience is on the higher side.  Therefore, it will be just and appropriate if the same is reduced to Rs.30,000/- from Rs.60,000/- as awarded by the District Forum. The costs of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the District Forum also seems to be on the higher side. The same are reduced to Rs.10,000/-. Our view is supported by the case of Surendra Kumar Tyagi Vs. Jyoti Nursing and Hospital and Another, IV(2010) CPJ-199 (NC), in which it was held by the Hon’ble National Commission that the compensation should be commensurate with the loss and injury, suffered by the complainant. The compensation is required to be fair and just and not unreasonable and arbitrary. The Consumer Foras are not meant to enrich the consumers, at the cost of service providers, by awarding unfair, unreasonable and highly excessive compensation.

13.      No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.

14.      For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is partly accepted and the impugned order is modified as indicated above. We direct the appellant/OPs No.1 & 2 to pay:

i)  Rs.30,000/- to the respondents/ complainants as compensation on account untold mental agony, physical harassment, discomfort and inconvenience caused to them.

ii) Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

         This order be complied with, by the appellant, within one month, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the same failing which, the appellant/OP Nos.1 & 2 shall be liable to pay the amount of Rs.30,000/- along with penal interest @ 9% p.a. to the respondents/complainants besides costs of Rs.10,000/-  from the date of complaint till realization.

15.      Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

16.      The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.                                     sd/-

November 8, 2011               [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

                                 PRESIDENT      

Cmg                                                        

      sd/-

                    [NEENA SANDHU]

                                           MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

                                           MEMBER

APPEAL No.174  OF 2011

Present:  Sh.Y.S.Dhillon, Advocate for the Appellant.

Sh.Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the Respondents.

                 -.-

           Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, this appeal has been partly accepted, with no order as to costs and is modified.

08.11.2011  (MEMBER)    (PRESIDENT)    (MEMBER)

cmg