BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 317 of 2014

Date of Institution: 05.06.2014

Date of Decision: 22.12.2015

Ram Singh S/o S. Sant Singh r/o 428, East Mohan Nagar, Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

1. Jet Airways (India) Limited Siroya Centre, Sahara Airport Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai 400099 India.
2. Jet Airways (India) Limited through its ticketing agent M/s. Travel Villa, Building No. 6, Dilwari Tower, Ist Floor, Court Road, Amritsar 143001

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present:  For the Complainant             :  Sh.Deshbir Singh, Advocate

               For the Opposite Parties      : Sh. Ajay Mehta, Advocate

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Sh. Anoop Sharma, Member

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Ram Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that in the month of April, 2014 the complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 for purchasing air ticket of Jet Airways, vide bill No. 172 dated 2.4.2014 and e-tickets flight No.JetKonnect S2 3235, PNR 1G-ZH4F42, Ref.VHEXIR, from Chandigarh to Bengaluru. The complainant agreed to avail the services of the Opposite Party No.2 as a very important meeting regarding the project of the complainant was scheduled with the top officials of Vijaya Bank at its Head Office at Bengaluru on 4.4.2014 at 10.00 AM and for that purpose, the complainant had opted for air travel which would save his precious time and meet the deadlines at Bengaluru. Moreover, the complainant had  specifically chosen a direct flight from Chandigarh to Bengaluru which was for his convenience as he is not able to change the flights and walk long distance time and again as the complainant met with an accident in the year 2010. A boarding pass wherein flight No.9W 2235 was issued at the Chandigarh airport and the flight of Opposite Party No.1 took off 5.40 PM as scheduled. The flight landed at the New Delhi around 6.30 PM for a refueling halt as already mentioned in the ticket. But the passengers of that flight traveling to Bengaluru were told to deplaned. Resultantly complainant was deplaned from Aircraft alongwith other passengers and had to wait for about one hour. Thereafter the Airlines of opposite party No.1 started boarding other  passengers and the flight was diverted to Doha. The complainant raised protest with the authorities of opposite party No.1 but no information was given by the authorities of opposite party No.1. After waiting for another 1½ hours, complainant was issued fresh boarding pass  at 9.05 p.m of the flight of opposite party No.1. The complainant reached at Bengaluru Airport at 12.30 a.m on the next day, whereas he was supposed to reach at 9.30 p.m. as per scheduled time and the complainant had to take more than 1 hour to reach his destination point because Bengaluru Airport is situated approximately 40 km outside the city centre. The complainant reached the hotel at 2.00 a.m. on the next day. The complainant was physically unfit and he had to walk approximately 1 km distance from one terminal to another and unnecessarily had to wait for three hours. The complainant also could not attend the meeting with the Chairman of Vijay Bank fixed at 10.00 a.m. The complainant suffered huge loss to his business and also suffered undue harassment. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to refund Rs.11000/- paid by the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.  Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Opposite Parties appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted for the consideration of this Forum that the present complaint ought to be dismissed at the threshold itself for  wrongly impleaded the Opposite Party, without any cause of action as the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 i.e. Jet Airways (India) Limited has nothing to do with the present case. M/s.Travel Villa is not the agents of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2  and is having separate entity in itself and can not be represented by Jet Airways (India) Limited. Since the complainant booked his tickets on Jet Lite flight  No.S2 3235 which is a code share flight with Jet Airways flight No.9W 2235 and that the same is not owned & operated by the Jet Airways (India) Limited. The grievance of the complainant is against Jet Lite (India) Limited since the complainant’s details of their air-travel mentioned in the instant complaint, pertain to jet Lite flight No. S2 3235 on which the travel was initiated by the complainant from Chandigarh to Bangaluru via New Delhi and that the said flight was operated by Jet Lite (India) Limited and not Jet Airways (India) Limited. It is further  submitted that Opposite Parties  have been unnecessarily / wrongly impleaded by the complainant, hence the complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. As such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground. Opposite Parties further submitted that the complainant his mischievously added the name of Jet Airways as Opposite Party No.2 instead of M/s.Travel Villa. So name of Jet Airways (India) Limited is liable to be deleted from the complaint. There is no direct flight of either Jet Airways (India) Limited or by Jet Lite (India) Limited from Chandigarh to Bangaluru. There is always stop-over at New Delhi which is also applicable in the present case. The Opposite Parties  have no concern with the complaint in any manner or regarding purpose of the complainant’s visit to Bengaluru. The complainant had initiated his travel on Jet Lite flight No.S2 3235 and said flight was operated by Jet Lite (India) Limited and not by Opposite Parties i.e. Jet Airways (India) Limited. Said flight is not owned by Jet Airways (India) Limited. So the allegations leveled by the complainant do not pertain to Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Parties  categorically mentioned that Jet Airways (India) Limited and Jet Lite (India) Limited are separate distinct legal entities in the eyes of law and operated separately by two  airline codes-9W for jet Airways and S2 for Jet Lite for the purpose of operation. Ticket numbers are also separate for both companies viz. 589 for Jet Airways and 705 for Jet Lite. The complainant booked his tickets on Jet Lite Flight No. S2 3235, so revenue proceeds would  get credited in the books of Jet Airways (India) Limited and not Opposite Party No.1. The complainant has availed the services of Jet Lite (India) Limited and not Opposite Party No.1. As such, present complaint needs to be dismissed. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. Opposite Parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Manish Maru, Manager Ex.OP1,2/1 alongwith letter of authorization Ex.OP1,2/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant purchased air ticket of Jet Konnect Ex.C-3 with share code S2 3235 from Chandigarh to Bengaluru vide bill No. 172 dated 2.4.2014 Ex.C-2 of opposite party No.2 Travel Villa, agent of opposite party No.1. Complainant was scheduled meeting with the officials of Vijay Bank at Bengaluru on 4.4.2014, so the complainant opted for air travel to save his precious time and the complainant had  specifically chosen a direct flight from Chandigarh to Bengaluru. The boarding pass of that flight No. 9W 2235 was issued to the complainant at Chandigarh Airport and the flight of opposite party No.1 took off at 5.40 p.m as scheduled and the flight landed at New Delhi Airport at 6.30 p.m. for refueling halt as mentioned in the ticket. But the passengers of that flight travelling to Bengaluru were told to deplaned. Resultantly complainant was deplaned from Aircraft alongwith other passengers and had to wait for about one hour. Thereafter the Airlines of opposite party No.1 started boarding other  passengers and the flight was diverted to Doha. The complainant raised protest with the authorities of opposite party No.1 but no information was given by the authorities of opposite party No.1. After waiting for another 1 ½ hours, complainant was issued fresh boarding pass  at 9.05 p.m . of the flight of opposite party No.1. The complainant reached at Bengaluru Airport at 12.30 a.m on the next day, whereas he was supposed to reach at 9.30 p.m. as per scheduled time and the complainant had to take more than 1 hour to reach his destination point because Bengaluru Airport is situated approximately 40 km outside the city centre. The complainant reached the hotel at 2.00 a.m. on the next day. The complainant was physically unfit and he had to walk approximately 1 km distance from one terminal to another and unnecessarily had to wait for three hours. The complainant also could not attend the meeting with the Chairman of Vijay Bank fixed at 10.00 a.m. The complainant suffered huge loss to his business and also suffered undue harassment. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.
7. Whereas the case of the Opposite Parties is that the complainant has impleaded the Opposite Parties  wrongly  without any cause of action as the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 i.e. Jet Airways (India) Limited has nothing to do with the present case. M/s.Travel Villa is not the agents of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2  and is a separate entity in itself and can not be represented by Jet Airways (India) Limited. Since the complainant booked his tickets on Jet Lite flight  No.S2 3235 which is a code share flight with Jet Airways flight No.9W 2235 and that the same is not owned & operated by the Jet Airways (India) Limited. The grievance of the complainant is against Jet Lite (India) Limited since the complainant’s details of their air-travel mentioned in the instant complaint, pertain to jet Lite flight No. S2 3235 on which the travel was initiated by the complainant from Chandigarh to Bangaluru via New Delhi and that the said flight was operated by Jet Lite (India) Limited and not Jet Airways (India) Limited. Opposite Parties  have been unnecessarily / wrongly impleaded by the complainant, therefore, the complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. As such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground. Opposite Parties further submitted that the complainant his mischievously added the name of Jet Airways as Opposite Party No.2 instead of M/s.Travel Villa. So name of Jet Airways (India) Limited is liable to be deleted from the complaint. There is no direct flight of either Jet Airways (India) Limited or by Jet Lite (India) Limited from Chandigarh to Bangaluru. There is always stop-over at New Delhi which is also applicable in the present case. The Opposite Parties  have no concern with the complaint in any manner or regarding purpose of the complainant’s visit to Bengaluru. The complainant had initiated his travel on Jet Lite flight No.S2 3235 and said flight was operated by Jet Lite (India) Limited and not by Opposite Parties i.e. Jet Airways (India) Limited. Said flight is not owned by Jet Airways (India) Limited. So the allegations leveled by the complainant do not pertain to Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Parties  categorically mentioned that Jet Airways (India) Limited and Jet Lite (India) Limited are separate distinct legal entities in the eyes of law and operated separately by two  airline codes-9W for jet Airways and S2 for Jet Lite for the purpose of operation. Ticket numbers are also separate for both companies viz. 589 for Jet Airways and 705 for Jet Lite. The complainant booked his tickets on Jet Lite Flight No. S2 3235, so revenue proceeds would  get credited in the books of Jet Airways (India) Limited and not Opposite Party No.1. The complainant has availed the services of Jet Lite (India) Limited and not Opposite Party No.1. As such, present complaint needs to be dismissed. The Opposite Parties  have also produced certificate of incorporation to prove that Jet Lite (India) Limited is separate company registered under section 18(3) of the Companies Act, 1956 and Jet Lite (India) Limited came into existence  from Sahara Airlines Limited. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties, therefore, submitted that present complaint is liable to be dismissed against the Opposite Parties.   
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant got booked his tickets of Jet Konnect Ex.C-3 with share code S2 3235 from Chandigarh to Bengaluru vide invoice dated 2.4.2014 Ex.C-2, whereas Opposite Parties i.e. Jet Airline flight has code No.  9W 2235. Air ticket produced by the complainant Ex.C7 also proves that this ticket is of Jet  Lite. Jet Lite (India) Limited is not owned and operated by  Jet Airways (India) Limited. The grievance of the complainant is against Jet Lite (India) Limited because the complainant’s details of their air-travel mentioned in this complaint, pertain to jet Lite flight No. S2 3235 on which the travel was initiated by the complainant from Chandigarh to Bangaluru via New Delhi. The Opposite Parties  have produced on record certificate of incorporation to prove that Jet Lite (India) Limited is separate company registered under the Companies Act Opposite Parties  have proved on record that  Jet Airways (India) Limited and Jet Lite (India) Limited are two separate distinct legal entities in the eyes of law and operated separately by two  airline codes-9W for jet Airways and S2 for Jet Lite for the purpose of operation. Ticket numbers are also separate for both companies viz. 589 for Jet Airways and 705 for Jet Lite. The complainant booked his tickets on Jet Lite Flight No. S2 3235, so revenue proceeds would  get credited in the books of Jet lite  (India) Limited and not of Opposite Party No.1.
9. Therefore, it stands fully proved on record that the complainant has availed services of Jet Lite (India) Limited through ticket Ex.C7 and not of Opposite Party No.1. Therefore, the present complaint against Opposite Party No.1 is not maintainable nor the Opposite Party No.2 M/s.Travel Villa is agent of Opposite Party No.1. So, the present complaint is hereby dismissed being not maintainable. However, the complainant is at liberty  to file case against Jet Lite (India) Limited, if he desires so. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.  Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 22.12.2015.                                                     (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                                                                                                                                    President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

                                                      Member                         Member