Order dictated by:

Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member.

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.  The complainant had earlier filed the said complaint on 5.6.2014 against Jet Airways (India) Limited and this Hon’ble Forum, vide order dated 22.12.2015 held that the complainant has availed the services from the present Opposite Parties i.e. Jet Lite (India) and not Jet Airways (India) Limited, hence the complaint has been filed against the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 as per the order of this Forum. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:

a)       Opposite Parties be directed to refund Rs.11,000/- paid by the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.

b)      Opposite Parties be also directed to pay Rs.5 lacs on account of mental agony, harassment and emotional distress suffered by the complainant due to the negligence and unprofessional conduct and working of the officials of the Opposite Parties.

c)       Litigation expenses which this Forum deem just and proper for the filing and perusing the present complaint may also be awarded to the complainant.

Hence the present complaint.

2. Upon notice, Opposite Party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted for the consideration of this Forum that Jet Lite (India) Limited was earlier known as Sahara Airlines Limited. Name of Sahara Airlines Limited was changed to Jet Lite (India) Limited on its acquisition by Jet Airways (India) Limited  after purchase of its 100%  share in April, 2007. Jet Lite (India) Limited and Jet Airways (India) Limited  are two different legal entities with different certificates of incorporation. This Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and adjudicate upon this matter. On this lone ground, the complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. On merits it is submitted that the complainant has not brought the original/ true copy of his ticket on the record for the reason best known to him. It is also submitted that, the flight was Chandigarh to Bangaluru  via Delhi and not a direct flight as has been wrongly mentioned by the complainant in his complaint.  Answering Opposite Party  have no concern with the complaint in any manner or regarding purpose of the complainant’s visit to Bengaluru.  It is further mentioned that on 2^nd April, 2014 Aircarft Registration No.VT-JBQ operating 9W 553 Doha-Delhi was grounded at Doha due to hydraulic leak, in the aircraft in the larger safety interest of all the prospective passengers, cockpit and cabin crew and the aircraft itself. This aircraft after rectification of the snag operated Doha-Delhi on 3^rd April, 2014 and arrived at Delhi airport only at 2141 hrs on 3^rd April, 2014. Thus the schedule operation was disturbed on 3^rd April, 2014 due to shortfall of one aircraft at Delhi on account of sudden grounding of the said aircraft at Doha. This led to the change of aircraft routing and delay on the delhi-Banguluru flight. It is further submitted that any such snag in any aircraft is an unforeseen event, and no sooner any such snag is reported the pilot of the aircraft and the concerned airline company does not allow the aircraft to take to sky for the sheer safety interest of all the passengers whether on board or the prospective. Since an aircraft is a highly complex flying machine, therefore, inspite of all the best efforts of the Aircraft Maintenance Engineers (AME), to keep it in flying conditions always, some or the other problem develops during the court of its operation. Therefore, all such happenings are beyond the human control, and the company at best can get such snag repaired at the earliest possible and operate the flight. In this matter as well, the company did whatever best it could have done at the given situation, and ensured atleast the passengers are flown to their destination safely the same evening, may be little late, but all the passengers, including the complainant are transported to their destination i.e. Bangaluru and that too very safely.  As such, present complaint needs to be dismissed. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. But however, none appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 despite due service, hence Opposite Party No.2 was proceeded against exparte.            
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C11 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5. Opposite Party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Tarun Sharma Ex.OP1/1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.OP1/6 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Whereas the case of Opposite Party No.1 is that complainant has not brought the original/ true copy of his ticket on the record for the reason best known to him. It is also submitted that, the flight was Chandigarh to Bangaluru  via Delhi and not a direct flight as has been wrongly mentioned by the complainant in his complaint.  Answering Opposite Party  have no concern with the complaint in any manner or regarding purpose of the complainant’s visit to Bengaluru.  It is further mentioned that on 2^nd April, 2014 Aircarft Registration No.VT-JBQ operating 9W 553 Doha-Delhi was grounded at Doha due to hydraulic leak, in the aircraft in the larger safety interest of all the prospective passengers, cockpit and cabin crew and the aircraft itself. This aircraft after rectification of the snag operated Doha-Delhi on 3^rd April, 2014 and arrived at Delhi airport only at 2141 hrs on 3^rd April, 2014. Thus the schedule operation was disturbed on 3^rd April, 2014 due to shortfall of one aircraft at Delhi on account of sudden grounding of the said aircraft at Doha. This led to the change of aircraft routing and delay on the Delhi-Banguluru flight. It is further submitted that any such snag in any aircraft is an unforeseen event, and no sooner any such snag is reported the pilot of the aircraft and the concerned airline company does not allow the aircraft to take to sky for the sheer safety interest of all the passengers whether on board or the prospective. Since an aircraft is a highly complex flying machine, therefore, inspite of all the best efforts of the Aircraft Maintenance Engineers (AME), to keep it in flying conditions always, some or the other problem develops during the court of its operation. Therefore, all such happenings are beyond the human control, and the company at best can get such snag repaired at the earliest possible and operate the flight. In this matter as well, the company did whatever best it could have done at the given situation, and ensured atleast the passengers are flown to their destination safely the same evening, may be little late, but all the passengers, including the complainant are transported to their destination i.e. Bangaluru and that too very safely.  As such, present complaint needs to be dismissed.
9. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that it is not disputed 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, but on the other hand, Opposite Party No.1 has specifically averred that on 2^nd April, 2014 Aircarft Registration No.VT-JBQ operating 9W 553 Doha-Delhi was grounded at Doha due to hydraulic leak, in the aircraft in the larger safety interest of all the prospective passengers, cockpit and cabin crew and the aircraft itself. This aircraft after rectification of the snag operated Doha-Delhi on 3^rd April, 2014 and arrived at Delhi airport only at 2141 hrs on 3^rd April, 2014. Thus the schedule operation was disturbed on 3^rd April, 2014 due to shortfall of one aircraft at Delhi on account of sudden grounding of the said aircraft at Doha. This led to the change of aircraft routing and delay on the Delhi-Banguluru flight. It is further submitted that any such snag in any aircraft is an unforeseen event, and no sooner any such snag is reported the pilot of the aircraft and the concerned airline company does not allow the aircraft to take to sky for the sheer safety interest of all the passengers whether on board or the prospective. Since an aircraft is a highly complex flying machine, therefore, inspite of all the best efforts of the Aircraft Maintenance Engineers (AME), to keep it in flying conditions always, some or the other problem develops during the court of its operation. Therefore, all such happenings are beyond the human control, and the company at best can get such snag repaired at the earliest possible and operate the flight. In this matter as well, the company did whatever best it could have done at the given situation, and ensured atleast the passengers are flown to their destination safely the same evening, may be little late, but all the passengers, including the complainant are transported to their destination i.e. Bangaluru and that too very safely. The only dispute remains with the parties is that though the Opposite Party No.1 had arranged to board the complainant in some other flight, but due to late reach, the complainant suffered huge loss to his business and also suffered undue harassment. In such a situation, we are of the view that the complainant has suffered mental tension and harassment due to the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
10. It is not disputed that the Opposite Parties have made alternative arrangement for the boarding of the complainant in some other flight, so in such a situation, the complainant is not entitled to the refund of the fare. The complainant has also sought for compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lacs. But however, the claim for compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lacs  is concerned, the same appears to be exorbitant and excessive. The rationale behind grant of compensation has been to compensate a party of the loss occasioned by it. It is none of the intention of the legislature while legislating the Consumer Protection Act to enrich a particular party at the cost of the other. The compensation has to be awarded in commensuration with the loss occasioned to the complainant. In our considered view, ends of justice would  be fully met if the complainant is awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/- (five thousands only) and we award the same accordingly. Besides this, the complainant is also entitled to litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.2000/-(two thousands only). Both the Opposite Parties are jointly or severally or co-extensively  directed to comply  with the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of passing the order until full and final payment. Both the Opposite Parties   are held liable jointly, severally & co-extensively to comply with the order.  The complaint stands allowed accordingly. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. 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.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 18.01.2017.