Haryana

StateCommission

A/241/2016

JAGJEET SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

JET LITE INDIA LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

JAGDEEP SINGH

06 Dec 2016

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.241 of 2016

Date of the Institution: 18.03.2016

Date of Decision: 06.12.2016

 

1.      Jagjeet Singh S/o Late Sh.Inder Singh, R/o House No.247, Sector-8. Panchkula.

2.      S.R.Vashishta S/o Late Sh.C.L.Vashishta, R/o H.No.426-P, Sector-12, Panchkula.

…..Appellants

 

Versus

 

1. Jet Lite (India) Limited, Siroya Centre Sahar Airport Road Andheri (East) Mumbai, 400099 through its Chairman.
2. Jet Airways (India) Limited Siroya Centre Sahar Airport road Andheri (East), Mumbai, 400099 through its Chairman.
3. Airports Authority of India, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi-110003 through its Chairman.
4. Vikramditya Travels, SCO No.215, Ist Floor,Sector-14, Panchkula.
5. Delhi International airport (P) Limited, New Udaan Bhawan, Opposite Terminal-3, Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi-110037, through its Chairman.

                                                                             .….Respondents

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Jagdeep Singh, Advocate counsel for the appellants.

                   Mr.Ashish Rawal, Advocate counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

                   Mr. Inderjeet, Advocate counsel for respondent No.3.

                   Mr.Vikram representative of respondent No.4.

                   Mr. Pardeep Singh, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.5.

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          It was alleged by the complainants that they booked three tickets to go from Delhi to Indore in the flight operated by O.P.Nos.1 and 2 through their agent Vikramaditya Travels i.e. O.P.No.4. The flight was to start from Delhi at 09.50 a.m. and they reached ‘Air Port’ in time and got their luggage etc. checked in. Boarding passes were also issued and thereafter they waited for a call about their flight. There was no indication at the airport, displayed by O.P.Nos.3 and 5, that lift was out of order and not fit for use. After the departure call they used lift to go to exist gates of  departure launge, but, due to some technical snag lift remained stopped approximately for 10 minutes.  When they came out of lift and reached exist gate it was found that bus was standing there to take passengers to scheduled flight.  They tried to get into the bus, but, could not succeed because officials of said flight closed the door of the bus and did not listen their request.  One of their colleagues, who boarded flight, requested O.P.Nos.1 and 2 to allow them to board flight, but, to no use.  Aforesaid airlines was totally non-cooperative and did not allow them to board plane without their fault.  So they be directed to repay the amount paid by them alongwith interest and compensation to the tune of Rs.08/- lakhs each for mental agony and harassment etc.

2.      O.Ps. filed separate replies controverting their averments.  It was alleged by O.P.No.1 that  concerned District Forum was not having territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint because flight was to go to from Delhi and their office was at Mumbai.  Booking e-ticket from Panchkula did not confer any territorial jurisdiction. However invoice was issued in the name of Wazir Singh and he was to fly from Delhi to Indore. He did not file any complaint. The complainants did not report at the gate in time and that is why they could not board the flight. It was specifically mentioned on the ticket that departure time was 09.50 A.M. and passenger was to reach departure gate 25 minutes prior to actual departure.  It was mentioned on the boarding pass that they should report at gate No.42A, 25 minutes before the departure, but, they did not come.  Repeated announcements were made besides manual search through floor walkers, but, they were not available.  Their companion M.S.Bari reached gate No.42 A in time and boarded the plane. Their averments about defect in lift were altogether false. Even otherwise announcement on the relevant gates was made with their names. As they did not present themselves for the boarding, they had no other option, but, to declare them as “Gate No Show”. It was wrong to allege that they requested to open door of bus and allow them to board the same because they were not available at the departure gate.  Objections about accruing cause of action etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      In addition thereto  O.P.No.2 alleged that flight was operated by O.P.No.1 and it was not having any concern with this flight and complaint was not maintainable against it.  They were not consumers as per their averments raised in the complaint, particularly as far as it’s case was concerned. They themselves were at fault and did not report in time at the time of departure. So they were not entitled  for any compensation.  Objections about  territorial jurisdiction and maintainability etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.      In addition thereto O.P.No.3 alleged that there was no relationship of service provider and consumer in between it and complainants. The control of airport was taken over by private firm i.e.
DIAL (Delhi International Airport Limited) in the month of May 2006.  It was not responsible for any type of lapse or omission.

5.      In addition thereto O.P.No.5 alleged that as per standard operating procedure, it was not concerned with the boarding of a passenger in the aircraft or his luggage.   It is for the airport authority or aircraft concerned to look into the same. They keep track of the passengers at entry and exit point of terminal building only for a period of 30 days. There were eight lifts on domestic side and 10 elevators on international side of the piers building and 45 elevators in the terminal building of the IGI Airport. All the lifts were monitored through CMS (control and monitoring system). The lifts leading to gate No.42 and 44 were functional through out the day. The emergency button was not pressed at the relevant time.  Emergency lock of PD4 showed that the button was pressed at 4.50 am, 07.15 pm likewise emergency button of PD3 was pressed at 01.58 pm, 1.59 pm, 2.55 pm and 07.16 pm. It was altogether wrong to allege that the lifts were not working properly.  Other averments were also denied and requested to dismiss the complaint.

6.      After going through the evidence and hearing the parties the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (in short “District Forum”) dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 30.12.2015.

7.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom,  complainants have preferred this appeal.

8.      Arguments heard. File perused.

9.      Learned counsel for the appellants-complainants vehemently argued that the tickets were booked online from Panchkula through O.P.No.4 who is having travel office at Panchkula, so District Forum, Panchkula was having territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint.  It was further argued that after security check boarding pass Ex.C-3 was issued in favour of  complainant No.1.  After  call about flight they started towards gate No.42, but, lift was stuck due to snag and 10 minutes were taken to remove the defects. By the time they reached departure gate the bus was taking passengers to the aircraft.  They requested to open the door and to allow them to get in, but, to no avail.  One of their companion also requested officials of airlines to allow them to board the bus, but, to no use.  In this way they were not at fault and there was deficiency in service on the part of the respondents-O.Ps. They be awarded compensation as prayed for.  Impugned order dated  30.12.2015 is altogether wrong and be set aside.           In support of his arguments he placed reliance upon the opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in Navaratn S.Jain Vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. 2006(2) CPJ 312 and opinion of State Commission, Delhi expressed in British Airways Vs. Mona Bhog 2008 (3) CPJ 100.

10.    This argument are of no avail. It is specifically mentioned in boarding pass Ex.C-3 that boarding gates will close 25 minus before departure. As per averments of the complainants, it is clear that they did not report in time. They have miserably failed to show that they reported at gate No.42 A in time. It is also not proved that the lifts were not working properly.  From the perusal of Annexure OP 5/2 and OP 5/3 it is clear that lifts were properly working at that time. Complainants have not produced any evidence contrary to the same. After the cancellation of the tickets refund was made to complainants, which is clear from the perusal of Ex.OP1/5. So it cannot be presumed that there was any deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. and learned District forum rightly  dismissed complaint. Findings of learned district Forum are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed. The complainant cannot derive any benefit from the cited case laws because they are based on altogether different facts.  In Navaratn S.Jain’s case (supra) the complainants were denied permission to board the plane despite confirmed tickets and instead some film actors were  accommodated. In British Airways’s case (supra) complainant was not allowed to board place despite OK status, whereas  in the present case the complainants themselves were at fault and did not report in time. There is no reason to disbelieve the version of the O.Ps.  Resultantly appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

 

December 06th, 2016

Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.