BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.186 of 2015
Date of Instt. 04.05.2015
Date of Decision :03.11.2015
Dr.Kiran Arora aged about 47 yers, Principal, Prem Chand Markanda, S.D.Collage for Women, Nehru Garden, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant Versus
1. Jet Airways, Head Office:- Siroya Centre, Andheri, Mumbai through its Official Incharge.
2. Jet Airways, BMC Chowk, Jalandhar through its Official Incharge.
3. Jet Airways, GT Road, Jalandhar through its Official Incharge.
4. Beri Travel, Opp.State Bank of India near Madan Flour Mill, Jalandhar, through its Prop./Owner/Partner.
.........Opposite parties.
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)
Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh.Harish Mahajan Adv., counsel for complainant.
Sh.NS Toor Adv., counsel for OPs No.1 to 3.
Sh.SK Beri, Proprietor of OP No.4.
Order
J.S.Bhatia (President)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant was to attend an official academic conference organized by Association of Indian College Principals which was scheduled to start on 30.1.2015 and conclude on 1.2.2015. The conference was hosted by Gujarat Law Society's H.A.College of Commerce and S.M.Patel Institute of Commerce, Ahmedabad. In order to attend the conference, the complainant had booked air ticket for herself and for Mrs.Nirmal Pandhi, Principal Shanti Devi Mahila College, Dinanagar (District Gurdaspur)-143531 who was to accompany her to attend the above mentioned conference through Beri Travels on 3.12.2014 booking reference No.3799667 as per details given:-
Name Ticket Number
1.Mrs Kiran Arora 5855847017
5855847015
2.Mrs.Nirmal Pandhi 5855847018
5855847016
Amritsar-New Delhi
Jet Airways Departure Amritsar Arrival New Delhi.
9W-2662 29.1.2015 10.50 Hrs 29.1.2015 12.00 Hrs
Gds Pnr-7BQ48G
New Delhi-Ahmedabad
Jet Airways Departure New Delhi Arrival Ahmedabad.
9W-688 29.1.2015 12.30 Hrs 29.1.2015 13.50 Hrs
Gds Pnr-7BQ48G
Ahmedabad-New Delhi
Jet Airways Departure Ahmedabad Arrival New Delhi.
9W-689 1.2.2015 14.25 Hrs 1.2.2015 15.55 Hrs
Gds Pnr-7BK8ZF
New Delhi-Amritsar
Jet Airways Departure New Delhi Arrival Amritsar.
9W-689 1.2.2015 17.05 Hrs 1.2.2015 16.05 Hrs
Gds Pnr-7BK8ZF
2. Total fare paid was Rs.31,704/- which as to be borne by complainant and Mrs.Nirmal Pandhi ½ each. On arrival at New Delhi Air Port the baggage of complainant was to be loaded alongwith other passengers in the connecting flights for Ahmedabad. On arrival at Ahmadabad, it transpired that the baggage of complainant was not loaded. Therefore, Property Irregularity Report dated 29.1.2015 was lodged. However the luggage of complainant was delivered to her after 30 hours. Therefore constrained by circumstances, she had to take an auto to go to bazaar to buy a suit, a shawl and a night suit as she was to attend the conference on 30th morning, 2015. The matter does not rest here because back from Ahmedabad to Delhi, flight was delayed by 3 hours and next flight of the same airlines was not available therefore one day unwanted and compulsory stay in Delhi for two ladies i.e complainant and Principal Nirmal Pandhi whereby the next day in their respective college was upset and important interviews scheduled for that day could not be held. Therefore with all the aforesaid ordeals which complainant had to undergo she had suffered unwanted and unforeseen inconvenience, harassment amounting to mental torture and unnecessary expenditure due to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for Rs.1 Lac as compensation and litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their written replies. In its written reply the contesting opposite parties No.1 to 3 pleaded that the complaint has been filed by concealment of material facts. The complainant nowhere discloses as to when the bag belonging to the complainant, was handed back to the complainant and when she received the same. By concealing the factum of receipt of the bag allegedly lost by the complainant, the complainant has tried to built up a complaint which is liable to be dismissed. The complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has not suffered any loss as the baggage of the complainant, was furnished back intact, which was received by complainant on 30.1.2015 at 13.30 Hrs. The allegation of any purchase having been made by the complainant, is denied. The complainant be put on strict proof regarding the delay on back journey from Ahmadabad to Delhi. The complainant did not suffer any inconvenience as the delay was due to no fault of the airlines, the answering opposite parties. The delay was caused for the circumstances beyond the control of the opposite parties. The complainant has also not disclosed as to what was the important commitment of the complainant on 1.4.2015.
3. In its separate written reply opposite party No.4 pleaded that it has simply booked the tickets and has been dragged unnecessarily.
4. In support of her complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and closed evidence.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties No.1 to 3 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP/A alongwith document Ex.OP/1 and closed evidence. Further Sh.Sushil Kuamr Proprietor of opposite party No.4 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP4/A and closed evidence.
6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.
7. The facts in the present complaint are not much disputed. The complainant took flight from Amritsar to New Delhi on 29.1.2015 and from New Delhi to Ahmedabad in the connecting flight of the same airline and reached at Ahmedabad on 29.1.2015 itself but on reaching at Ahmedabad it was found that her baggage has not been loaded in the connecting flight. Admittedly, the bag was delivered to the complainant on 30.1.2015 at 13.30 Hrs. In its written reply, opposite parties No.1 to 3 have not explained the delay in handing over the baggage of the complainant to her on her arrival at Ahmedabad. It has also not given any reason for not loading the baggage of the complainant in the connecting flight of the same airline. So it constitute deficiency in service. On return journey the flight was also delayed by three hours and as such the connecting flight was missed and complainant has to stay for one day at New Delhi and she was accommodated in the flight on next day. In its written reply, opposite parties No.1 to 3 have pleaded that delay was caused due to circumstances beyond the control of the opposite parties. The opposite parties have not explained the circumstances which were beyond their control. It also constitute deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties No.1 to 3. Infact in their written reply opposite parties No.1 to 3 have not given any specific reason for not loading the baggage of the complainant in the connecting flight and for delay of flight on return journey by three hours due to which the complainant missed connecting flight and had to stay at New Delhi for one day. All this must have caused mental torture and harassment to the complainant for which she is entitled to compensation.
8. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted and opposite parties No.1 to 3 are directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation and further Rs.3000/- on account of litigation expenses within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the entire awarded amount after the expiry of said period of one month till the date of payment. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia
03.11.2015 Member Member President