BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 31ST OCTOBER 2014
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.55/2013
(Admitted on 23.2.2013)
1. Sathisha,
S o Late Thimappa Poojary,
Aged about 35 years,
Residing at Adimaye Nilya,
III Cross Road, Gorigudda,
Valencia, Mangalore 575 002.
2. Jagajeev Chawta,
S/o Late Y.Naryana Shetty,
Aged 48 years,
Residing at “ Naryana Nivas”,
Bada Yermal Post, Udupi District. …….. COMPLAINANTS
(Advocate for Complainants: Sri Venugopal V.S.)
VERSUS
1) Jet Airways,
Corporate Office,
Siroya Centre,
Sahar Airport Road,
Andheri East,
Mumbai 400 099,
Represented by its C.E.O.
2) Jet Airways,
B/1, Amrachand Mension,
Madam – Cama Road,
Next to Golden Gate,
Coloba, Mumbai – 400 038,
Represented by its C.E.O. ……OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for Opposite Parties: Sri. Shakeel Mazar)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY:
I. 1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service as against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainants stated that, he had booked two tickets in both of their individual names from opposite party airlines in Bangalore Airport office on 3.12.2012 at 5:15 P.M to travel from Bangalore to Mangalore on 3.12.2012 via timings 6.25 p.m. by paying Rs.5,700/- for each ticket. The complainant had taken a boarding pass in Bangalore Airport and they have subject to security check on 5.40 p.m. and they entered boarding gate hall at 5.46 p.m., and the complainants were sitting in restaurant in Gate 4 inside the Airport. There was no announcement made by jet staff to come to boarding gate. It is stated that, there is a clause in boarding pass itself that the passenger should come 25 minutes prior to departure. The complainants keeping in mind the aforesaid clause entered the boarding gate voluntarily at 5.58 P.M. But the boarding gate voluntarily at 5.58 p.m was closed but the officials of the Jet Airways company board refused to allow complainants to board the said flight and thereby they have refused to board the flight on the above said day, but officials of second Opposite Party behaved arrogantly and denied the boarding of the flight. It is contended that the act of the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency in service and hence the complainant filed the above complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Parties to pay a ticket cost that is sum of Rs.11,400/- along with interest at 18% from the date of journey along with compensation and cost of the proceedings.
II. 1. Version notice served to the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 by R.P.A.D. Opposite Party No.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel filed common version. It is admitted that the complainant purchased Airway s tickets. It is stated that on 3.12.2012 the complainants checked in for Flight 9W 401 schedule departure time 18.25 hrs at 5.32 p.m to travel from Bangalore to Mangalore and obtained the boarding pass for the flight. After obtaining the boarding pass the complainants should have reported to the boarding gate within the stipulated time, but the complainant’s did not reported to the boarding gate till the flight 9W 401 had departed. Because of complainant’s own negligence they could not travel on the flight 9W 401 on 3.12.2012 and denied the deficiency and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
III. 1. In support of the complaint, Mr.Sathisha (CW1) – Complainant filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced Ex. C1 to C5. On behalf of Opposite Parties one Mr. Gladwyn Mascarenhas (RW-1) Airport Manager filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on them and produced Ex.R1 to R3.
In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i): Affirmative.
Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
IV. 1. POINTS NO. (i) TO (iii):
In the instant case, the facts which are admitted is that, the complainant booked two tickets in both of their individual names from Opposite Party in Bangalore Airport Office on 3.12.2012 at 5:15 P.M. to travel form Bangalore to Mangalore on 3.12.2012 via timing 6.25 P.M by paying necessary amount. It is also not disputed that they were subject to security check on 5.40 p.m. and they have entered the boarding gate hall at 5:46 P.M. Further there is no dispute of the fact that there is a clause in boarding pass itself that the passenger should come 25 minutes prior to departure.
Now the points are in dispute before this FORA is that, the complainants contended that they have purchased Air Tickets to travel from Bangalore to Mangalore on 3.12.2012 and also they have subject to security check-in on 5.40 P.M. and entered boarding hall at 5.46 P.M. They contended that the opposite parties not announced to the passengers of the said flight to come to boarding gate immediately. Even though the complainants entered boarding gate at 5.46 P.M. but the Opposite Parties are refused the complainants to enter the boarding gate and thereby they could not boarding the flight on the above said date. Hence came up with this complaint.
On the contrary the Opposite Parties contended that the complainants must board the boarding gate after obtaining the boarding pass. But the complainants have failed to report boarding gate within stipulated time till flight 9W 401 had departed. Therefore they could not board their flight.
On perusal of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, wherein, we find that in the instant case no doubt the complainant obtained air ticket according to their statement of affidavit admitted that they were sitting in the restaurant in gate 4 inside the Airport just opposite boarding counter but opposite parties officials not announced the passenger to report the boarding gate. Now the point for consideration is that since the complainants admitted that they were in restaurant and also they have failed to serve interrogatories to the opposite Parties and also failed to serve rely to the interrogatories served by the opposite parties in this case, that means because of negligence on the part of the complainants as they were sitting in the restaurant and they could not report the boarding gate on time and hence flight No. 9W 401 was departed, so we do not find any negligence on the part of the opposite parties in this case. If at all the complainants are on time, then definitely they ought to have served interrogatories to the opposite parties and very well answered to the interrogatories served by the Opposite Parties. No attempt has been made which is fatal to their case. But the opposite parties shall refund the price of the Air tickets after deducting reasonable amount i.e. as per the standard clauses. They cannot retain the entire amount because they have not made arrangement or provided in any connecting flight or otherwise.
In view of the above observation the above complaint is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.
In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 7 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of October 2014)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 – Mr.Sathisha – Complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1: 3.12.2012: Boarding Pass issued in the name of
Complainant.
Ex C2: 3.12.2012: Boarding Pass issued in the name of
Complainant.
Ex C3: 10.12.2012: Lawyers Registered notice.
Ex C4: 13.12.2012: Acknowledgment.
Ex C5: 21.12.2012: Reply notice by Opposite Parties.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW-1: Mr. Gladwyn Mascarenhas, Airport Manager of O.P.No.1.
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Ex R1: 23.1.2013: Office copy of the reply notice.
Ex R2: Postal Acknowledgement.
Ex R3: Authorization letter.
Dated:31-10-2014 PRESIDENT
