DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SAS NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.1104 of 2017
Date of institution: 26.12.2017 Date of decision : 03.12.2021
Ram Parkash Bhatti aged 64 years son of Shri Nazar Ram, resident of House No.1916, Phase-X, SAS Nagar (Mohali).
…….Complainant
Versus
1. Jet Airways, Corporate Office, Jet Airways (India) Limited, Siroya Centre, Sahar Airport Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400099 through its Chief Executive Officer Vinay Dube.
2. Jet Airways, Near Civil Air Terminal Chandigarh, Village Jhurheri, SAS Nagar (Mohali).
……..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Ms. Gagandeep Gosal, Member
Present: None for the complainant.
OPs ex-parte.
Order dictated by :- Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Order
The present order of ours will dispose of a complaint under Consumer Protection Act, filed by the complainant (hereinafter referred as ‘CC’ for short) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred as ‘OPs’ for short), on the ground that he booked online tickets on goibibo.com of Jet Airways from his residence at Mohali. The CC was to travel from Chandigarh to Delhi on 09.10.2017 and the flight was to depart from Chandigarh Airport at 7.35 AM and was to reach at New Delhi on 8.40 AM. The CC had paid Rs.7,682/- for the ticket. The CC had further booked a ticket from New Delhi to Chennai, which was to depart at 10.25 AM on 09.10.2017 and was to reach at Chennai at 1.10 pm and the CC had paid Rs.3,770/- for the ticket. It is averred that the CC had further booked a flight from Chennai to Tiruchirapally, which was to depart at 4.30 pm and was to reach at Tiruchirapally at 5.35 PM and the CC had paid Rs.5,194/- for the ticket. It is averred that the CC reached Chandigarh Airport on 09.10.2017 in time, but the flight took off late at 9.10 AM and reached New Delhi around 10.15 AM. The luggage of the CC was deplaned by 10.30 AM and by that time the flight of the CC from New Delhi to Chennai had already departed. The CC had to buy a fresh ticket of next flight available from New Delhi to Chennai by paying Rs.9,800/-. There was no further flight from Chennai to Tiruchirapally in the night and the CC had to book a hotel at Chennai for his stay for which he spent Rs.4,175/-. The CC boarded a flight from Chennai to Tiruchirapally on 10.10.2017 at 7.35 AM and reached Tiruchirapally at 8.35 AM. The CC was to preside over a meeting fixed for 09.10.2017.As the CC could not reach on 09.10.2017 due to which the CC lost Rs.5,000/- for the cancelled meeting.
Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the CC has sought a refund of Rs.9,800/-, Rs.4,175/- and Rs.4,550/- towards tickets alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and Rs.5,000/- loss of earning for the meeting and compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- for harassment and mental agony. Further the CC has demanded Rs.55,000/- as litigation expenses. Complaint of the CC is duly signed. Further the same is also supported by an affidavit of the CC.
2. OP No.1 and 2 have filed joint reply on the allegations that the complaint of the CC is not maintainable since GOIBIBO has not been impleaded as a party. It is alleged that all the tickets were purchased from GOIBIBO. Refund the tickets was processed through GOIBIBO by the CC. There is no principal agent relationship between the OPs and GOIBIBO. As such the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. It is further averred that fright from Chandigarh to New Delhi got delayed as the OPs, did not receive any permission or approval from Air Traffic Control (ATC) at 7.35 AM. It is further averred that Air Traffic Control perform serious types of functions of managing the control of air traffic and entire communication systems of the airports including communication with the aircraft in the air, landing and take-off of the aircraft. Thus, safety of the aircraft is dependent on the performance of these Air Traffic Controllers. It is further averred that the ATC determines, routes, speed and height etc. for the aircraft. Unless and until the ATC grants clearance/permission, no aircraft can fly/take-off. In other words, clearance/permission from ATC is a mandatory pre-condition for any aircraft to fly or take off at a particular time from any airport in the world. It is further averred that in the present case, the said permission was granted by the ATC about 08.10 am due to air traffic congestion. The flight in question thus took off at 08.15 am after the permission was received from the ATC. It is further averred that delay in departure of flight in question occurred due to reason beyond the control of the OPs. It is further averred that the operating airline would not have the obligation to pay any compensation, where the cancellation and delays have been caused by an event (s) of force majeure i.e. extraordinary circumstance(s) beyond the control of the airline, the impact of which lead to the cancellation/delay of flight (s) and which could not have been avoided, even if all reasonable measures had been taken by the airline. Additionally, airline would also not be liable to pay any compensation in respect of cancellation and delays clearly attributable to the ATC, meteorological control of the airline but which affect their ability to operate flights on schedule. Thus alleging no deficiency in service on their part, OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The CC in support of his complaint tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7. On the other hand, the Ops have tendered in evidence affidavit of Sunil Sharma, their authorized representative Ex.OP-1/1 and documents Ex.OP-1 and Ex.OP-2.
4. The case was listed for arguments. However, none appeared for the parties to address arguments. We ourselves have gone through the file and are deciding the complaint on merits since the entire evidence of the parties is already on the file.
5. It is pertinent to mention here that as far as deficiency in service on the part of the OPs is concerned, the primary onus is always on the complainant to prove deficiency in service against the OPs, since the complainant has alleged deficiency in service against the OPs. In this case, we feel that the CC is required to establish on facts any willful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or any inadequacy in service on the part of the OPs. We feel, that there is no sufficient evidence on the file to prove that there is any willful deficiency or imperfection or any inadequacy in service on the part of the OPs, since the reasons mentioned by the OPs in their written version were beyond their control. Reasons given by the OPs in their written version that the flight from Chandigarh to New Delhi was delayed as the OPs did not receive any permission or approval from Air Traffic Control, which performs critical functions of managing the control of air traffic and entire communication systems of the airports including communication with the aircraft in the air, landing and take-off of the aircraft. The safety of the aircraft is dependent on the performance of these Air Traffic Controllers. The ATC determines, routes, speed and height etc., for the aircraft. Unless and until the ATC grants clearance/permission, no aircraft can fly/take-off. To our mind this is beyond the control of OPs. OPs in support of their case has placed reliance on documents Ex.OP-1/1 and Ex.OP-1/2 wherein it is clearly mentioned that the operating airline would not have the obligation to pay any compensation, where the cancellation and delays have been caused by an event of force majeure i.e. extraordinary circumstance beyond the control of the airline.
6. In this case, the CC has failed to bring any cogent, reliable or trustworthy evidence against the OPs. We feel that things beyond control of the OPs cannot make them liable for any consequences. We feel, that personal safety of the passenger is more importance than the tour of the passengers. Even in the entire complaint and in the evidence, nothing is submitted that the version of the OPs if false and fabricated. We cannot term the case of the CC as a case of willful fault or imperfection or shortcoming on the part of the OP.
7. In view of our above discussion, the present complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. Free certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties and thereafter the file be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
December 03, 2021
(Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)
President
I agree.
(Ms. Gagandeep Gosal)
Member
