Haryana

Panchkula

CC/26/2015

JAGJEET SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

AVNIKA GUPTA.

30 Dec 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                            

Consumer Complaint No	:	26 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	09.02.2015
Date of Decision	:	30.12.2015

                                                                                          

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

2.       S.R.Vashista s/o late Sh.C.L.Vashista, R/o House No.426-P, Sector-12, Panchkula.

                                                                                          ….Complainants

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, 1^st 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.

                                                                                        ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr.Jagdeep Rana, Adv., for the complainant. 

Mr.Anish Rawat, Adv., for the Op No.1.

Mr.Subhash Chand, Adv., for the Op No.2.

Mr.Inderjeet Singh, Adv., for the Op No.3.

OP No.4 already ex-parte.

Mr.Partap Singh, Adv., for the Op No.5.

ORDER

(Anita Kapoor, Member)

1. The complainants-Jagjeet Singh and S.R.Vashista has filed this complaint against the opposite parties (in short the Ops) with the averments that on 17.06.2014, they booked three air tickets of Airlines of Ops No.1 and 2 from OP No.4 for flight from Delhi to Indore for 23.06.2014 and also confirmed the tickets for flight from the Ops. The complainants are officers of Haryana State Electricity Regulatory Commission, Panchkula and they were scheduled to attend a very important meeting at Indore to discuss some important issues related to electricity/power. The flight was scheduled to departure from Delhi at 9.50 AM and the time for arrival at Indore was 11.50 AM. On 23.06.2014, the complainants were reached at the Airport on time. The complainants were checked in with their luggage and boarding passes were issued to them. Thereafter they passed through the security check at the airport and proceeded to the departure lounge. There was no mark or board put at lift at the airport by the OP No.3 to indicate that it was out of order or not fit for use. Therefore, totally unaware of its condition, the complainants used the lift at the Airport to reach the exit gates of departure lounge. Unfortunately, the lift of the Airport got stuck due to some technical defect for some time (approx. 10 minutes). When the complainants got out of the lift and rushed to the exit gates, they found the bus which was taking the passengers to the scheduled flight was standing there. The complainants tried to get into the bus so that they could reach their scheduled flight but before they could do so, the Ops No.1 & 2 Airlines officials closed the door of the bus. The complainants told the staff that they were stuck in the lift and there was no mistake on their part but the officials of Ops No.1 & 2 were not ready to listen to any of their pleadings. The complainants requested many times but the officials of Ops No.1 and 2 did not allow them to board into the bus and the complainants could not reach the scheduled flight. One of the colleagues of the complainants, who boarded the flight, requested to flight officials and announcements were also made for the complainants from the flight but the staff of the Ops No.1 and 2 did not ready to cooperate with the complainants and the flight was left. However, the complainants had to battle with the officials of the Ops No.1 and 2 for their own luggage and after waiting for hours, it was returned around 2.30 pm. In order to reach at Indore for meeting, the complainants made alternative arrangement and booked tickets from Delhi to Indore with Air India flight AI636. The Op No.3 the Airport Authority of India, is a Government body and is responsible for managing Indira Gandhi International Airport (Domestic Airport) at New Delhi and it charges Airport Tax from passengers for providing various services at the Airport including the services like elevators. However, the staff of the OP airlines could have made some alternative arrangement for the complainants so that they could reach the scheduled flight on time.   This act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on its part. Hence, this complaint.
2. In reply, the OP No.1 filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the Op No.1 is a body corporate registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956; having its registered office in Mumbai and Delhi. It is submitted that earlier the Op No.1 has known as Sahara Airlines Ltd. It is submitted that name of Sahara Airlines Ltd. was changed to Jet Airways (India) Ltd. on its acquisition by Jet Airways (India) Ltd. by purchase of its 100% shares in April, 2007. It is submitted that a fresh certificate of incorporation dated 15.05.2007 was issued by Registrar of Companies depicting the change of name to Jet Lite (India) Ltd. It is submitted that the OP No.1 is a scheduled airline and is engaged in the business of operating its flight under the flight code S2 on various domestic sectors and on one international destination with document/ticket code 705 whereas the Op No.2 is operating its flights under the flight code 9W to all its destinations with document/ticket code 589. It is submitted that the Op No.1 is independent and separate legal entity from that of OP No.2 and both have their separate fleet of aircrafts, operating licenses, account books etc. It is submitted that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. It is submitted that merely booking of ticket/e-ticket at Panchkula would not confer ay territorial jurisdiction to this Forum. It is submitted that the complainant had booked three tickets namely Mr.Jagjeet Singh-complainant No.1, ticket No.7055233137085, Mr. M.S.Puri-non-complainant ticket No.7055233137086 and Mr.S.R.Vashista-complainant No.2, ticket No.7055233137087 vide e-tickets for Jet Lite flight No.S2 3459 from Delhi to Indore.  It is submitted that the flight was schedule to departure on 23.06.2014 at 9.50 AM from Delhi airport, T-3 and it had departed at the schedule time. It is submitted that the complainants reached at the check-in-counters of the Ops within the stipulated time and they were issued their boarding passes at Delhi Airport, T-3. After clearing their security checking, the complainants entered into boarding zone and thereafter the passengers including complainants were supposed to move towards the allotted gate no.42A for boarding the aircraft by way of “AEROBRIDGES” or “Bus”. It is submitted that after receiving the boarding passes well in time, the complainants did not reach the relevant boarding gate No.42A within the stipulated time of 25 minutes prior to the departure. It is submitted that the staff on duty of Ops made several announcements by calling the names of complainants as well as also made manual search through the floor walkers on the relevant gates but they did not present for the boarding. It is submitted that the staff of Op had no other option but to declare the complainants as “Gate No Show”. It is submitted that Mr.M.S.Puri reached the boarding gate No.42A within stipulated time and was able to board the aircraft and concluded his journey successfully without any hassles. It is submitted that the boarding pass of Mr.S.R.Vashisht has not been produced by the complainants deliberately. It is submitted that the able bodied persons usually take the fully functional lift/elevators at Delhi Airport to reach the boarding gate No.42A. It is submitted that as per the prevailing rules, the boarding gates were to be closed 25 minutes prior to departure and the passengers who reached late were termed as “Gate No Show/No Show”. It is submitted that the complainants had booked their tickets through Op No.4 which had got the tickets booked through M/s Via Travels Pvt. Ltd., BLR. It is submitted that the Op had already refunded the ticket amount through M/s Via Travels Pvt. Ltd., BLR after deducting the applicable cancellation charges during the period from 23.07.2014 to 31.07.2014. It is submitted that the tickets were issued to the passengers as per rules and regulations as prescribed by the Carriage by Air Act, 1972. It is submitted that the carriage by Air Act has been made applicable on all the domestic carriers vide notification dated 30.03.1973 which reads as “Notification regarding application of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 to carriage by Air which not International”. It is submitted that the condition of contract which is printed on the jacket of the ticket is a contract between the passenger and the airlines company. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op No.1 and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In reply, the OP No.2 filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the complainant booked the flight No.S2 3459 which operated by the Op No.1 not the Op No.2. It is submitted that there is neither any binding contract between the complainants and OP No.2 nor any deficiency in service on the part of Op No.2. It is submitted that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint. It is submitted that the complainants were to take Jet Lite flight No.S23459 bearing ticket Nos.7055233137085, 7055133137086 and 7055233137087 from New Delhi to Indore. It is submitted that the difficulty faced by the complainants due to non-operation of the elevator at New Delhi Airport. It is submitted that Jet Airways is neither under any fault for the complainants missing their flight and nor is under any obligation to refund the tickets fares to the complainants. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op No.2 and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. In reply, the OP No.3 filed written statement. It is submitted that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint. It is submitted that the Op No.3 Delhi Airport has taken control by private firm i.e. DIAL (Delhi International Airport Limited) in the month of May, 2006 and now the Op No.3 has no concern with Delhi Airport. It is submitted that it was the duty of the Ops No.1 & 2 and complainant himself who have booked the tickets. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op No.3 and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
5. Op No.4 appeared before this Forum on 19.03.2015 and was directed to file written statement on his behalf. But thereafter, the Op No.4 did not put his appearance nor filed any written statement. Therefore, the Op No.4 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 16.04.2015.
6. In reply, the OP No.5 filed written statement. It is submitted that the Op No.5 is basically managing, operating and developing the IGI Airport which also includes Terminal-3. It is submitted that as per the standard operating procedure, the Op No.5 is neither concerned with the boarding of the passenger in the Aircraft or his luggage. It is submitted that the OP No.5 maintained CCTV footage at the entry and exit points as well as in the Terminal building only for a period of 30 days. It is submitted that there were sufficient signages in the Terminal Building leading to the departure gate. It is submitted that on 23.06.2014, all the lifts and escalators leading to the departure gate were functional. It is submitted that there were 8 Lifts on the domestic side and 10 elevators on the International side of the Piers Building and 45 elevators in the Terminal Building of the IGI Airport. It is submitted that all the lifts are monitored through CMS (Control and Monitoring System). It is submitted that both the lifts leading to gate No.42 and 44 as per the boarding pass of the complainants were functional throughout the day. It is submitted that the said lifts were named as Lift PD4 and PD3. It is submitted that the elevator (Lift) emergency logs of PD4 showed that the emergency button was pressed at 4:49:37 A.M. on 23.06.2014 and re-set at 4:50:02 A.M. It is submitted that the second alarm was pressed at 7:15:31 and was re-set at 7:16:32 P.M. It is submitted that there was no mal functioning of lift PD4 during the relevant period when the complainants were at the Airport. It is submitted that the elevator (Lift) emergency logs of PD3 showed that the emergency button was pressed at 1:58:46 PM and was re-set at 1:59:12, again at 2:55:41 P.M. and re-set at 2:57:02 P.M. and again pressed at 2:58:11 P.M. and re-set at 3:00:54 P.M. It is submitted that last time the emergency button was pressed at 7:16:05 P.M. and was re-set at 7:16:30 P.M. it is submitted that the equipments including the Lifts and Escalators installed at the IGI Airport are world class as acknowledged by various rating agencies. It is denied that the lift got stuck due to some technical defect. It is submitted that in case an elevator/lift is non-functional, the same is displayed as “Out of Order” on the lift itself. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op No.5 and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
7. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the represented parties in relatability to the pleadings made by them, we are of the considered view that the complainants herein deserve to be non-suited. The reasons in support thereof are as under.
8. We would, at the very outset, proceed to adjudicate upon the controversy about whether this Forum has the territorial jurisdiction to try this complaint. The pure and simple plea made by the complainants is that they having purchased the air tickets from OP No.4 – a Panchkula-based travel agent of OP No.1, this Forum has the jurisdiction to try the complaint. Reliance, in support of the averment, was placed upon AIR 1989 SC1239 (ABC Laminart Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.P. Agencies, Salem).
9.      On the other hand, the contesting OPs aver that no part of cause of action having arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, it has no jurisdiction to try the complaint. Reliance, in support of the averment was placed upon the view recorded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. (2010(1)SCC135).
10.      On a conjunctive appreciation of the rival contentions, we agree with the presentation made on behalf of the complainants.In ABC Laminart case (supra), the Apex Court dealt with the provisions of Section 20 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure which deals with the jurisdiction facet. Along therewith, it also interpreted the provisions of the Information Technology Act 2000 and, as a cumulative effect thereof, held that the jurisdiction would be competent if any part of the cause of action had arisen therein. In that case, the ticket had been booked over Internet and had been forwarded by the airline company to the complainant therein through e-mail.That view at the Hon’ble Apex level applies, with equal vigour, to the present case.
11.      Insofaras Sonic Surgical’s case (supra) is concerned it was based on different facts. In that case, the Insurance policy had been taken at Ambala, the fire broke out in the godown at Ambala and the claim for compensation too arose at Ambala. The complainant therein, relying upon the amendment to Section 17 (2) of the CP Act, filed a complaint at Chandigarh on an averment that the insurance company did have a branch office at Chandigarh in view of the amendment aforementioned. The Hon’ble Apex Court rejected the contention by observing that the amended section came into force w.e.f. 15.03.2003 and, thus, the complaint was not competent at Chandigarh. Those facts have no applicability to the facts of the case before this Forum.
12.      That finding in favour of the complainants notwithstanding, they have to be non-suited on merits thereof. As against the plea by the complainants that they were unjustly denied access to the plane, the contesting OPs have relied upon computerized information to prove that a number of announcements were made over the public information system to inform the complainants that they were required to reach the entry gate to board the plane but they did not respond. There is also force in the averment on behalf of the contesting OPs that the lifts are usually used by passengers on wheel chairs or any other physical handicap and further that the normal passengers would use either the stairs or the escalators. The contesting OPs have also made an affidavit-supported averment that the lifts did not get stuck up on the relevant date.OP No.5 also filed a “Copy of each of the Elevator Emergency Logs of Lift PD3 and Lift PD4”. The complainants did not file a counter affidavit to rebut the averment.If the complainants did not report for entry (to the plane) within the time frame recorded on the boarding passes, no fault can be found with the closer of the entry gates and the declaration by the contesting OPs as “Gate No Show/No Show”. Those boarding passes, it may be noticed here, were produced by noneelse or other than the complainants themselves.
13.      We must also notice here that this complaint is, even otherwise, not competent against OP No.2 and 3. Insofaras the former is concerned, it made an affidavit supported averment that it (Jet Airways) is an entity independent of ‘Jet lite’. Likewise, OP No.3 made a precise averment that the activities at Delhi airport are handled by dial (Delhi International Airport Ltd.) since May 2006. The above averments have not been controverted by the complainants by filing a counter affidavit.
14.      The present is, in our considered view, a case wherein the complainants are to blame themselves only for delay on their part to reach the entry point 25 minutes before the departure time of the plane. And they cannot validly make an averment that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the contesting OPs. We would, accordingly, dismiss the complaint.               
15. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced

30.12.2015       S.P.ATTRI        ANITA KAPOOR        DHARAM PAL

                         MEMBER         MEMBER                               PRESIDENT

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                          

                                                         ANITA KAPOOR

                                                          MEMBER