BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 507 of 2015

Date of Institution: 17.8.2015

Date of Decision: 21.6.2016  

Rajvinder Singh s/o S. Bhupinder Singh, R/o 13-Ratan Chand Road, Amritsar

Complainant

Versus

1. Jet Airways, Corporate Office Siroya Centre Andheri East Mumbai 400099 through its MD
2. Dawar Travels, A-93, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar through its Prop.

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

Present: For the Complainant : Sh.Geetinder  Singh Majhail, Advocate

              For Opposite Party No.1   : Sh.Ajay Mehta,Adv.

             For opposite party No.2           : Ex-parte

Coram

Sh.S.S.Panesar, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.

1.       Rajwinder Singh has brought the instant complaint under section  12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that on 14^th March 2015 complainant booked two tickets from Amritsar to Goa with opposite party No.2  for the air service of opposite party No.1 i.e. Jet Airways. The travel dates were confirmed by opposite party No.1 from 2^nd June 2015 to 7^th June 2015. At the time of booking Rs. 27476.88/- was paid by the complainant to opposite party No.2 which was duly received by opposite party No.1. After receiving the full and final payment of the tickets, opposite party No.1 issued a ticket bearing booking ID No. FMNIA92810B dated 14.3.2015. The travel schedule under which the complainant was to board from Amritsar  on 2^nd June 2015 at 1.0.45 A.M and was to reach Delhi at 11.55 A.M.. Thereafter complainant was to board from Delhi at 12.30 and was to reach Mumbai at 2.40 P.M. Again at 5.45 P.m. complainant was to board from Delhi and scheduled time of reaching Goa was 6.55 P.M. on the same day and in the same way the return journey was planned. On Ist of June complainant approached opposite party No.2 for confirming the departure time from Amritsar when opposite party No.2 opened the computer and  found that Mumbai-Goa time is mentioned  7.00 A.M. while the time mentioned on air ticket  being 5.45 P.M.. Opposite party No.2 asked the complainant  whether the complainant got any message from the Jet Airways regarding the change of time, the complainant told opposite party No.2 that till date there was no message  on his mobile from opposite party No.1 in this regard. At this opposite party No.2 made a telephone call to the office of opposite party No.1 and enquired about the change in the schedule of flight. The concerned person told opposite party No.2 that there  is a change in the fly time from Mumbai to Goa from 5.45 P.M. to 7.00 A.M., On this opposite party No.2  asked the official of opposite party No.1 how it was possible for a passenger who was boarding from Amritsar at 10.45 A.M. and how it was possible for him to take the flight  at 7.00 A.M. on the same day from Mumbai. Opposite party No.1 told opposite party No.2 that they were helpless and it is for the passenger to reschedule their journey. All the journey plan was made by the complainant four months prior to the journey and it was very difficult for him to cancel his whole tour plan and therefore he was forced to travel according to the wishes to opposite party No.1. The next travel schedule was given  by opposite party No.1 was that the complainant was to bard from Amritsar at 10.45 A.M. on 2^nd June and would reach Delhi at  12.00  on the next day i.e. 3^rd June 2015 he will catch the flight from Delhi at 7.10 hours from Delhi to Bengaluru and would reach there at 9.50 hours . Thereafter from Bengaluru  the complainant will board from Goa at  10.25 ours. The complainant  was forced to spend one night i.e. 2^nd day night at  Delhi  unnecessarily on his own expenditure and he was forced to spend about Rs. 7000/- for stay in the hotel, taxi expenses etc which were not at all required . In the new schedule of travelling given by opposite party No.1 to the complainant, he was forced to travel to Bengaluru instead of Mumbai which was not in the earlier travel. When complainant reached Bengaluru  at about 9.50 and was to board the next flight for Goa at 10.25 hours, opposite party No.1 did not bother to make announcement and without waiting opposite party No.1  to board the flight,  the aircraft left for Goa leaving the complainant behind and he was  again forced to spend one night at Bengaluru. The complainant took the flight for Goa  next moring i.e. 4^th June 2015.. This time again the complainant had to spend Rs. 5000/- unnecessarily on boarding and lodging at Bengaluru. Opposite party No.1 in rescheduled travelling plan forced the complainant to take the return journey on 10^th June instead of 7^th June   and due to this forceful stay imposed upon the complainant by opposite party No.1 , the complainant had to stay 3 days in Goa unnecessarily. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 has not at all informed the complainant by way of any communication method that they have changed the schedule of flight from Mumbai to Goa and thereafter left the complainant  at high and dry at Bengaluru Airport when the complainant was to board the flight for Goa. The complainant was forced to spend three nights in  Goa , one night in Delhi and one night in Bengaluru.  Due to this negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1, complainant suffered mental agony, pain and also wasted so many nights unnecessarily and further suffered monetary loss. The complainant has sought the following reliefs vide instant complaint :-

(i)      Opposite parties be directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- for mental agony suffering and pain ;

(ii)     Rs. 12000/- spent on boarding and lodging ;

(iii)    Rs. 27,476.88/- booking amount and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and contested the complaint by filing written version. Opposite party No.  2 despite due service did not opt to file any written version, however, at the later stage Ravi Kumar appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2 and contested the proceedings at that stage only.

3.       In written version opposite parties No.1 & 2 took certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint as framed is not legally maintainable ; that complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint ; that complainant has not approached this Forum and is guilty of concealment of true and material facts from this Forum. The fact remains that the complainant booked confirmed  returned ticket through opposite party No.2.  There was reschedule of two flights and the opposite party combined their flight 9W 446 departing on 2.6.2015 with 9W 2375 which was scheduled to depart on the  same day. The schedule change was carried out on 25^th March 2015 i.e. two months before the change in schedule was done. Upon any such schedule change, system auto generates a message which gets highlighted on the system of the agent ( opposite party No.2) who in turn sends it to the concerned passengers of that particular flight from his own system. The concerned call centre of opposite party also calls passengers and informs them about the change of departure time of their flight. In the present case, complainant was called twice on 24.3.2015 and also on 25.3.2015 but on both the occasions , the complainant did not attend the call. As a process,last call is made a day before  date of departure. In the present case complainant has already got his ticket reissued on 1.6.2015 and as such it was not required to make any third call to him. The relevant entries are highlighted  in PNR  report, copy whereof is enclosed. It can also be seen from PNR that the agent has also sent  system notification about the schedule change of the complainant’s flight by the staff  of opposite party Airline. However, he failed to inform the complainant about the change carried out on 25.3.2015. This gross negligence is on the part of opposite party NO.2. So it is clear that negligence and deficiency in service was only on the part of opposite party No.2. Further the change in flight schedule was in evitable due  to “ repair/overlay of flexible portion of runway pavement at INS HANSA” Airport.  The relevant circular from the  concerned Commanding Officer is enclosed. Apart from this a schedule  compare report is also enclosed by the opposite party indicating the cancellation of flight and accommodation of passengers on the flight departing early in the morning on 2.6.2015. The complainant himself has reached at Airport at 9.50 a.m. on 3.6.2015 while the departure time of the said flight was 10.25 a.m.. The itinerary enclosed by the complainant alongwith ticket indicates that the concerned passenger needs to remain present at the check in counter at least 45 minutes before the departure time else he would not be able to board his flight. So the complainant himself did not reach at the check in counter on time. Apart from this , Banglore International Airport is a silent Airport and no boarding announcements are made at the airport.Thus opposite party No.1 was not legally empowered to make any boarding announcements at the said Airport due  to restrictions imposed by the Airprot authority of India on all the airlines operating from that airport. FIDS (flight Information Display System) is  conveniently placed at almost all the places for the passengers to know the status of their flight viz boarding, final call/gate closed etc. The complainant himself failed to notice these instructions as well and missed his flight. Answering opposite party did not have any subsequent flight operation to Goa after the said flight departure at 10.25 a.m.  that morning and as such complainant was given option of next day’s travel which was accepted by him without any dispute or demur. The complaint is also infructuous because the complainant has already completed his travel without any dispute and demur while accepting the option of the next day travel. On merits facts narrated in the complaint have been specifically denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

4.       Opposite party No.2 filed its separate reply, wherein facts narrated in para 1 to 12 are admitted. The contents of para 13 have been replied in the manner   that the contents mentioned in  this para are to be proved by the complainant and the replying opposite party has no knowledge about the contents of this para . In additional reply, it is stated that  it is for the information  of this Forum that there is no communication on behalf of opposite party No.1 regarding change of the schedule of the flight to the replying opposite party and it is stated that complaint may be disposed of accordingly.

5.       In his bid to prove the case, complainant has tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of ticket dated 14.3.2015 Ex.C-2, copy of ticket dated 1.6.2015 Ex.C-3, copy of ticket dated  1.6.2015 Ex.C-4, copy of hotel bill dated 3.6.2015 Ex.C-5, copy of ticket dated 3.6.2015 Ex.C-6, copy of ticket dated 3.6.2015 Ex.C-7, copies of boarding cards Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-18 and closed his evidence.

6.       To rebut the aforesaid evidence, Sh. Ajay Mehta,Adv.counsel for opposite party No.1 tendered affidavit of Sh.Vishal Luthra Ex.OP1/1, letter of authorization Ex.OP1/2, tickets details Ex.OP1/3, copy of repair/overlay circular of the Commanding Officer Ex.OP1/4, schedule compare report Ex.OP1/5 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No.1.

7.       On the other hand Sh.Ravi Kumar  on behalf of opposite party No.2 tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.OP2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No.2.

8.       We have heard  the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file. Opposite party No.1 submitted written arguments while written arguments were also pressed into service on behalf of the complainant, whereas opposite party No.2 addressed oral arguments.

9.       It has been contended on behalf of opposite party No.1 that the complaint has been filed by the complainant merely on the allegations that he booked the ticket of Jet Airways for 2^nd June 2015 and when on 1.6.2015 he approached opposite party No.2 for confirming the departure time from  Amritsar, opposite party No.2 opened the computer and found that Mumbai Goa time  has been shown as 7 A.m. morning on 2.6.2015 while the time mentioned on the ticket being 5.45 p.m.. The main allegation of the complainant is that opposite party No.1 has changed the schedule time of the flight without any prior intimation. However, the facts remains that the complainant booked confirmed return ticket through opposite party No.2. There was reschedule of two flights and the opposite party combined their flight 9W 446 departing on 2.6.2015 with 9W 2375 which was scheduled to depart on the same day. The schedule change was carried out on 25^th March 2015 i.e.  more than two months before the actual journey. Upon any such schedule change, system auto generates a message which gets highlighted on the system of the agent (opposite party No.2) who inturn has to send it to the concerned passengers of that particular flight from his own system. The concerned call centre of opposite party also calls passengers and informs them about the change of departure time of their flight. In the present case complainant was called  twice on 24.3.2015  and on 25.3.2015 but on both the occasions complainant did not attend the call. As a process, last call was required to be made a day before his travel. In the present case, complainant had already got his ticket reissued on 1.6.2015 and as such it was not required to make any third call to him . The relevant entries are highlighted in Ex.OP1/3 which are PNR report . From the PNR, it can be observed that the agent was also sent system notification about the schedule change  of the complainant’s flight by the staff of opposite party.However, opposite party No.2 failed to inform the complainant about the change carried out on 25.3.2015. This is gross negligence on the part of opposite party No.2. So it becomes clear that the negligence and deficiency in service , if  there was any, it was on the part of opposite party NO.2. Further the change in flight  schedule was in evitable due “Repair/Overlay of flexible portion of runway pavement at INS HANSA” Airport. The relevant circular from the concerned Commanding Officer is Ex.OP1/4. Apart from this a schedule compare report was Ex.OP1/5 which indicated the cancellation of flight and accommodation of passengers on the flight departing  early in the morning on 2.6.2015. Complainant himself  reached at Airport at 9.50 a.m on 2.6.2015 and the departure time of the said flight was 10.25 a.m.  The itinerary enclosed by the complainant alongwith ticket indicates that the concerned passenger needs to remain present at the check in counter at least 45 minutes before his departure time else he would not be able to board his flight. So the complainant himself did not reach at the check in counter on time.  Apart from this, Banglore Internation Airport is a silent Airport and no boarding announcements are made at the Airport. Thus opposite party No.1 was not legally empowered to make any boarding announcements at the said airport due  to the restrictions  imposed by the  Airport authority of India on all the airlines operating from that Airport. FIDS (Flight Information Display System) is conveniently placed at almost all the places for the passengers to know the status of their flight viz boarding, final call/gate closed etc. The complainant himself failed to notice these instructions as well and missed  the flight. Answering opposite party did not have any subsequent flight operations to  Goa after the said flight departure at 10.25 A.M. that morning and as such complainant was given option of next day’s travel which was accepted by him without any dispute or demur. More over , complainant has already travelled without any dispute and demure while accepting the alternative flight and  now the complainant has filed the false complaint only to harass the opposite parties without any cause and reason.

10.     From the aforesaid discussion, ld.counsel for the opposite party has vehemently contended that there is absolutely  no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 and the complaint may be dismissed accordingly atleast against opposite party No.1.

11.     But, however, from the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it  becomes evident that  it is admitted case of the parties that the complainant booked two seats from Amritsar to  Goa with opposite party No.1 to be travelled on the airways of opposite party No.1 on 14.3.2015. Copy of the ticket accounts for Ex.C-2. The travel dates were informed by opposite party No.1 from 2.6.2015 to 7.6.2015. AT the time of booking Rs. 27476.88/- were paid by the complainant to opposite party No.2 which were duly received by opposite party No.1. After receiving full and final payment of the tickets  , opposite party No.1 issued  e-ticket bearing booking ID No. FMNIA92810B dated 14.3.2015, which is Ex.C-2 on record. The travel schedule was that the complainant was to board from Amritsar on 2.6.2015 at 10.45 a.m and was scheduled to reach Delhi at 11.55 a.m. Thereafter the complainant was to board from Delhi at 12.30 and  was scheduled to reach Mumbai at 2.40 p.m. Again at 5.45 p.m, complainant was to board from Delhi towards Goa while reaching time at Goa was 6.55 p.m on the same day and in the same way the return journey was planned..However, on 1.6.2015 the complainant approached opposite party No.2 for confirming  the departure time from Amritsar . When opposite party No.2 opened the computer , he found that Mumbai-Goa time was shown as 7.00 a.m while the scheduled time mentioned in the ticket being 5.45 p.m. Opposite party No.2 asked the complainant whether the complainant got any message from Jet Airways regarding the change in time, the complainant told the opposite party No.2 that till date there was no message on his mobile from opposite party No.1 in this regard.  Opposite party No.2  made a telephone call  to the office of opposite party No.1 and enquired about the change in the schedule of flight. The concerned person told opposite party No.2 that there was a change in the flight time from Mumbai to Goa from 5.45 p.m. to 7.00 a.m. On this opposite party No.2 asked the official of opposite party No.1 how it  was possible for a passenger who was boarding from Amritsar at 10.45 a.m. , to take the flight at 7.00 a.m. on the same day from Mumbai scheduled for Goa. At this official of opposite party No.1 told opposite party No.2 that they are helpless and the passenger will have to reschedule their journey. Although the journey was planned by the complainant four months prior to the date of the journey and  it was very difficult for him to cancel his whole tour plan and he was forced to travel according to the wishes  of opposite party No.1. The next travel schedule which was given by opposite party No.1 has been that the complainant was to board from Amritsar at 10.45 a.m on 2.6.2015 and was to reach Delhi at 12.00  and on the next day i.e. 3.6.2015 complainant was to take the flight from Delhi at 7.10 hours to Bengaluru and would reach Bengaluru at 9.50 hours. Thereafter from Bengaluru complainant was to board for Goa at 0.25 hours. The complainant was forced to spend one night i.e.2.6.2015   at Delhi unnecessarily on his own expenditure and  he must have spent  an amount of Rs. 7000/- for his stay in the hotel, taxi expenses etc which were absolutely not required. In the new schedule of travelling given by opposite party No.1 to the complainant , he was forced to travel to Bengaluru instead of Mumbai   and it was not in earlier travel schedule. When complainant reached Bengaluru at about 9.50  and was to board the next flight for Goa at 0.25 hours the opposite party No.1 did not bother to make announcement and without waiting opposite party No.1 to board the flight, left for Goa leaving behind the complainant . The complainant had to spend  another night in Bengaluru and the complainant must have spent Rs. 5000/- on boarding and lodging etc. The opposite parties  forced the complainant to take the return journey on 10^th June instead of 7^th June . Due to that, the complainant was forced to stay for 3 days in  Goa unnecessarily.  The complainant must have spent Rs. 5000/- in Goa for boarding & lodging etc. As such there is deficiency of service both on the part of opposite parties No.1 & 2. Opposite party No.1 has not at all informed the complainant by way of  any  means of communication. It has been stated that Banglore International Airport is a silent Airport and no boarding announcements are made at the airport. But, however no such notification  has been produced on record to prove the said fact, which further proves deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1. Due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, complainant has suffered mental agony, pain and has wasted so many days unnecessarily and has to suffer monetary loss as well. The complainant has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs for mental agony suffering and pain  etc. But, however, claim made by the complainant is exorbitant and exaggerated . The complainant is entitled to such damages/compensation only to offset  the actual loss suffered by him and no extra ordinary/exorbitant amount can be ordered to be paid to him. This Forum cannot award exorbitant compensation to enrich one party at the cost of the other. As such we hold that complainant is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 10000/- only  besides the amount spent on boarding and lodging detailed above  which comes to Rs. 17000/-. Litigation expenses are assessed to the tune of Rs. 2000/. Opposite parties are held jointly and severally liable to make payment of the awarded amount within one month of the receipt of copy of this order ; failing which awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of passing of order until full and final recovery. However, relief claimed for refund of ticket amount to the tune of Rs. 27,476.88/- is not available to the complainant because the complainant has availed the air services of opposite party No.1 as per rescheduled program w.e.f 2.6.2015 to 10.6.2015 instead of 2.6.2015 to 7.6.2015 & the same stands declined accordingly. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 21.6.2016

/R/                                                                        ( S.S.Panesar )

President

                             ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)           (Anoop Sharma)

                                                Member                          Member