DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.330/2008

Shri Rohan Diwan

S/o Ramesh Diwan

R/o 2/12, Sarvapriya Vihar,

Hauz Khas, New Delhi- 110016

                                                                                                                         ….Complainant

Versus

Jet Airways (India) Ltd.

Jet Air House

13, Community Centre,

Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi- 110049

Rep Vice President Public Relation

Jet Airways (India) Ltd.

S.M. Centre,

Andheri Kurla Road,

Andheri (East),

Mumbai- 400059                                                                                           ….Opposite Parties

       Date of Institution    :         27.05.2008     

       Date of Order            :         14.02.2022

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

ORDER

President: Monika A Srivastava

      The complainant has filed the present complaint against OPs i.e Jet Airways praying for refund of a sum of Rs.6,680/- towards extra costs for purchase of tickets, a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards physical strain and mental agony, harassment and inconvenience suffered.

It is stated by the complainant that on 19.02.2008 the complainant had purchased tickets for flight NW # 61 from the OP Airways for travelling from Leh to Delhi on 30.04.2008. He was accompanied by his father aged 64, sister and niece aged 5. On reaching the Leh airport they were informed that the flight was cancelled 2 hours prior to the take-off .  It is further stated that at the airport, the OP refused to accommodate the complainant and his family members on different airlines and because of that the complainant had to undergo a great mental trauma as he was stranded in an unfamiliar territory along with senior citizen and a child. It is stated that the complainant had to purchase new tickets for different airlines and pay much more than what was initially booked. It is submitted that the sudden change of schedule of the OP caused great deal of mental trauma, physical inconvenience and embarrassment to the complainant and his family.

In their reply the OP has stated that the instant complaint is false, malicious, frivolous and vexatious and is an abuse of the process of the court. It is also stated that IATA agent ‘Make My Trip’ is a necessary party to the transaction and therefore is a necessary party to the complaint in absence of which the complaint is not maintainable. It is stated that the cancellation of the said flight was reflected on the agent system and the complainant’s itinerary rebooked to travel on subsequent flight from Leh to Delhi and a remark was inserted on the complainants PNR that was displayed on the agent system mentioning the above changes.

The OP having disseminated its obligation by informing the agent about the change in status of the flight states that there is no deficiency in service on their part. They have further stated that the flight was cancelled for the reason that they could carry the armed forces personnel from Leh to Delhi once in a week as a part of their agreement with the Army and as per the requirement of the Ministry of Defence, Government of India. Since the complainant was incidentally travelling on a Wednesday therefore the cancellation was not arbitrary but as per the requirement of the army personnel and beyond the control of the OP. In this regard the OP has filed annexure OP 3 and OP 4. OP 4 is a letter written to Wing Commander A.B Patel regarding the agreement for operation of charter flights to carry the troops on the sectors Delhi Leh Delhi for the period 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009. This agreement is dated 27.03.2008.

It is further stated that the staff of the OP at Leh airport endeavoured to re-accommodate the complainant on a subsequent flight departing from late to Delhi however complainant preferred to travel on another flight and sought a refund which was immediately processed. It is further stated that the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands and therefore the complaint is liable to be rejected. The OP has relied on P. Gopinathan vs the Chairman, Air India reported in 1(1992) CPJ 5(NC)  Commercial officer, Office of Telecom District Manager, Patna vs Bihar State Warehousing Corporation reported in 1 (1991) CPJ 42 regarding the grant of compensation. They have also placed reliance on a judgment passed in II ( 2004) CPJ 547 and III (1995) CPJ 95 wherein it was held that cancellation of flight is not deficiency in service.

In their rejoinder, the complainant has denied about any information having been received regarding cancellation of flights and state that nothing has been put on record as proof of the same by the OP. It is also stated the reason given by the OP that the flight was cancelled so that they could carry the armed forces personal from late to Delhi once in a week and from northeast region to Delhi and vice versa is their desperate mode to subdue the claim of the complainant and that since the father of the complainant superannuated from the armed forces as a senior army officer he is aware that army flights has nothing to do with the civilian flights as is claimed by the OP. It is further stated that had the complainant been aware of the  changes in the itinerary mentioning the cancellation of the scheduled flight he would not have taken this trip with his old father and young niece. He denies any such communication being ever made to him.

We have carefully gone through the complaint, reply, rejoinder, evidences and written submissions of both the parties. There is no doubt that OP had an agreement with the army regarding carrying off army personnel which is dated 27.03.2008. The documents filed by the OP however do not clearly reflect as to how they have informed their agents and that too in advance regarding the cancellation of flights from Leh to Delhi on designated days in view of that agreement. It is also not clear whether the same was duly informed to the IATA agent, who in turn did not inform the complainant. In the absence of Make My Trip being a party to this case, this cannot be clearly decided.

The complainant has been able to bring out a case of inconvenience being caused to him and his family at the Leh airport because of the cancellation of flight by OP. The complainant however, has not made it clear whether the OP at the Leh airport, made any efforts to relocate them in different flight after cancellation of their flight. While this is not clear from the documents filed by both the parties the fact remains that the complainant was abandoned with his family at the airport and had to buy new tickets for travelling back to Delhi therefore we think it fit to grant a sum of Rs.6,680/- towards the cost which the complainant paid for buying fresh tickets to Delhi, as also a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as token for the inconvenience caused to the complainant and his family.

Let the file be consigned to record room after giving copy of the order to the parties. Order be uploaded on the website.