BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complt. Case No : 482 of 2009

Date of Institution:  07.04.2009

Date of Decision  :  07.06.2010

Bhuwanesh Sharma s/o Late Sh.Kedar Dutt, Aged 49 years, R/o House No.1006/1, Sector 45-B, Chandigarh

 ……Complainant

V E R S U S

1]        Jetlite India Ltd., D/A, A-110, Street No.5, NH-8, Mahipal Pur Extension, New Delhi – 37

2]     Shri Sai Travels, SCO No.1100-1101, Ist Floor, Sector22-B, Chandigarh.

.…..Opposite Parties

CORAM:        SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA            PRESIDENT

                SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI         MEMBER

                MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                  MEMBER

PRESENT:   Sh.Amit Rajanwal, Adv. for the complainant.

OP No.1 exparte.

Sh.Raman Jain, Auth. Agent of OP No.2.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

                The present complaint has been filed by Sh.Bhuwanesh Sharma, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act wherein the complainant has prayed for compensation against the OPs for deficiency in service and harassment due to the cancelled/grounded off flight.

                The facts of the case are as under:-

1]             The complainant had purchased tickets of Sahara Airline Ltd., which was subsequently taken over by Jetlite India Ltd. (OP No.1), from OP No.2 for travel from Delhi to Banglore and Chennai to Delhi.  All the tickets issued were confirmed tickets.

                Unfortunately, when the complainant along with his wife reached Chennai Airport on April, 15, 2007 to board the flight for Delhi, he was astonished to find that the flight had been grounded off.  This meant that the flight had been cancelled permanently.  The complainant was at wits end and did not know what to do.  Because of the negligence of the OPs, the complainant had to spend the day in Chennai and could board the first available flight for Delhi only the next day.  As stated by the complainant, he had to incur extra expenses of about 15,000/- on stay & food at Hotel Taj, travel etc. during his extended stay in Chennai.

                Since the complainant was further booked from Delhi to Chandigarh by Shatabdi Train, those tickets also went waste.  The complainant and his wife had to face other problems also.  The complainant had to cancel important business meetings and his wife had to take additional leave from work.

                On reaching Chandigarh, the complainant issued a legal notice (Ann.C-5) upon OP No.1 through his Advocate seeking compensation for deficiency in service.  Since no reply was received from the OPs, the complainant had no other option but to file the present complaint praying for compensation and relief from the OPs. 

2]             After admission of the complaint, notices were sent to both the parties. 

3]             OP No.2 in their reply submitted that they are only in the business of ticketing on behalf of OP No.1 and various other companies, and get commission for the same.  It is the sole responsibility of Op No.1 to inform the customers with regard to change in times/schedule of flight.  Thus in this  case, OP No.2 cannot be held responsible in any manner due to deficiency of OP No.1.

                In the light of above, they have prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP No.2.

4]             OP No.1 in their reply after taking certain initial objections made reference to the conditions of carriage wherein the OP had a right to cancel, advance, reschedule, overfly etc. without assigning any reason to the passengers.  The relevant portion is reproduced below:-

“The company reserves the right, without assigning any reason, to cancel, advance, reschedule, over fly or delay the commencement or continuance of the flight or alter the stopping place to deviate from the route of the journey or to change the type of aircraft in use without thereby incurring any liability in damages or otherwise to the passengers or any other person on whatsoever.  The company also reserves to itself the right to refuse to carry any person whom it considers unfit to travel or who in the opinion of the company may constitute risks to the aircraft person on board.”  

                The air tickets issued to the passengers contained the condition of carriage and these conditions became an agreement, which are binding on both the parties.

                The conditions of carriage have been appended as Ann.OP-1/A with their reply.

                Replying on merits, they admit that the purchase of tickets are a matter of record. As regards cancellation/ grounding off of the flight is concerned, they submit that the flight was cancelled due to ‘operation reason/severe technical fault’ in the aircraft, as a result of which the aircraft was not available for operation.  When such conditions occur, they always tender information to all their authorized agents to convey to all the passengers, who have purchased tickets about the change.  They have also contended that OP No.2 is neither an authorized agent nor a competent authority to issue any tickets on their behalf. 

                When the passengers/complainants had reached the Airport to catch the flight, the official of OP No.1 had given the option to all the passengers either to avail the next available flight or get refund from the respective agents from whom the tickets were booked.  The complainant opted for the next flight on 16^th April, 2007.  they have denied the expenditure incurred by the complainant for his stay at Hotel Taj and other expenses.  They have further denied that the complainant had any problems with regard to his business and his wife had to take additional leave due to cancellation of the flight. 

                Stating that the complaint and the prayer of the  complainant is false, frivolous and baseless, without any legal right, they have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs. 

5]             The case had been adjourned for arguments many times.  On 17^th May, 2010 the OP No.1 was not present, so it was proceeded against exparte and the case was adjourned to 1^st June, 2010 for arguments.

6]             We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the evidence led by the complainant and OP No.2 in support of their contentions. 

7]             At the time of arguments, the ld.Counsel for the complainant has alleged that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and OP No.2 since the flight booked by the complainant for a journey from Chennai to Delhi was grounded off and the complainant was not informed about this fact on time.  Also no efforts were made by the OPs to make the stay of the complainant and his wife comfortable in Chennai from the time of grounding off of the flight till the time the next flight took off.  The OP No.1 could have provided reasonable accommodation to the complainant/passengers when the flight was grounded off.  This delay involved the stay of one day and night at Chennai.  The complainant had to pay approximately Rs.15,000/- for his wife and himself to stay at a hotel as well as for food and other expenses.

8]             Besides the harassment caused at Chennai due to the delay of flight, the complainant and his wife also had to cancel their Shatabdi tickets from New Delhi to Chandigarh.  Business meeting fixed for the following day had also to be cancelled.  The wife of the complainant also had to take another day leave from her school.

9]             The authorized agent of OP No.2 contended that they were only agents of OP No.1 and deficiency, if any, was on the part of OP No.1.

10]            Taking into consideration all the pleading and all evidence led by all the parties, we are of the view that the complainant and his wife certainly suffered due to the negligence of OP No.1 and must be adequately compensated for the loss and harassment caused to them especially since they were not even informed of the cancellation of flight.  This amounts to deficiency in service.  Reference to carriage rules, as well as rules & regulations mentioned on the back of the air ticket cannot exonerate OP No.1 from their duty to help the customers/passengers in a new place in case their flight is cancelled/grounded off especially when the customer has not even been informed about this occurrence in advance.

11]            In view of the above, this complaint is allowed, with the following directions to OP No.1:-

i)         OP No.1 will pay Rs.15000/- to the complainant for deficiency in service by not informing the complainant in time about the cancelled/grounded off flight.

ii)        OP No.1 will also pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant as cost of litigation.

12]            This order be complied with within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the OP No.1 shall be liable to pay the above amount of 15,000/- along with interest @12% per annum from the date of receipt of the copy of the order till the date of actual payment besides the cost of litigation.

13]            Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

07.06.2010                                                                      Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

                                                          Sd/-

                                       (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

MEMBER

                                                          Sd/-

                                                             (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

‘Om’