Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/346/2015

Spicejet Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Justice N.K.Agarwal (Retd.) - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Punj, Adv.

29 Dec 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

First Appeal No.	:	346 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	23.12.2015
Date of Decision	:	29.12.2015

 

Spicejet Ltd., 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon – 122016.

……Appellant/Opposite Party No.1

 

V e r s u s

 

1.  Justice N.K. Agarwal [Retd.] son of Sri Narayan Das.
2.  Bimla Devi w/o Justice N.K. Agarwal [Retd.]

Both residents of H.No.305, GH 34, Sector 5, MDC, Panchkula –134114.

              ....Respondents No.1 and 2/Complainants

3. Make My Trip (India) Pvt. Ltd., Tower-A, S.P. Info City, 243, Udyog Vihar Phase-I, Gurgaon – 122016 (Haryana), through its Director.

....Respondents No.3/Opposite Party No.3

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE:         JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                        MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                        MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:       Sh.Amit Punj, Advocate for the appellant.

 

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

            This appeal is directed against an order dated 20.11.2015, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the Forum only), vide which, it accepted a complaint, filed by the complainants (now respondents no.1 and 2) and directed opposite parties No.1 and 2 (now one of which is the appellant/opposite party no.1), as under:-

“In the light of above observations, the present complaint of the Complainants deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are, jointly & severally, directed, to:-

[a]    To pay Rs.11,886/- (Rs.17496 -  5610) to the Complainants towards actual cost borne by them on account of performing journey from Varanasi to Delhi by making their own arrangement, through the Indigo Airlines on 01.12.2014;

[b]    To pay Rs.15,000/- each to the Complainants on account of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and causing mental agony and harassment; 

[c]     To pay Rs.11,000/- as cost of litigation;

The Complaint against Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 is dismissed.

The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as mentioned in sub-para [c] above.”

2.       As per facts on record, complainant No.1, alongwith his wife, booked two air tickets of Spicejet airlines on 17.10.2014, for their journey from Chandigarh to Varanasi on 25.11.2014 and from Varanasi to Chandigarh on 01.12.2014, with stop-over for about 02 hrs., at Delhi Airport, in both the journeys, after paying an amount of Rs.22,614/-, through online. The air tickets of flight of the appellant were booked through internet i.e. through website of Make My Trip (India) Pvt. Ltd. Tickets were received by respondents no.1 and 2, online. Respondents no.1 and 2, travelled by Spicejet Flight No. SG 2112, from Chandigarh to Delhi, on 25.11.2014. However, when they reached Delhi, they found that their connecting Spicejet Flight No.SG 114, from Delhi to Varanasi, was cancelled. After frantic efforts, they were accommodated in Indigo Airlines Flight No.6 E 118, from Delhi to Varanasi, on the same day.  To utter surprise of respondents no.1 and 2, the schedule Spicejet Flight No.SG 119, in which they were to perform return journey from Varanasi to Delhi, on 01.12.2014, had also been cancelled and intimation in this regard was given telephonically by the appellant, only on 30.11.2014, as a result whereof, they were compelled to book their tickets, with Indigo Airlines Flight No.6 E 119, for their return journey from Varanasi to Delhi, on 01.12.2014, after paying an amount of Rs.17,496/-. Respondents no.1 and 2, however, managed to reach Delhi, on 01.12.2014, to catch the next connecting Spicejet Flight from Delhi to Chandigarh. Respondents no.1 and 2, made several requests to the appellant, to refund the airfare, paid by them, in respect of the cancelled flight (Varanasi to Delhi). However, after numerous reminders, only a sum of Rs.5610/- was refunded on 05.01.2015, which compelled them to file consumer complaint before the Forum.
3.       Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 in their joint written version stated that the flight(s), in question, was/were cancelled due to technical and operational reasons, which were beyond their control. Respondents no.1 and 2, including other passengers, were intimated about the same, well in advance. They were given option either to cancel their reservation and take full refund of the airfare paid, or to plan their journey, in the next available flight, free of cost. Not only this, an amount of Rs.5610/- had also been refunded to respondents no.1 and 2, in lieu of the cancelled flight(s). The remaining averments were denied being wrong.
4.       Opposite parties No. 3 & 4, in their joint written reply stated that they had discharged their liability by issuing confirmed tickets to respondents no.1 and 2. Cancellation of the respective flights, was done by opposite parties No.1 & 2, and, as such, opposite parties no.3 and 4, cannot be fastened with any liability, for the same.  The remaining averments were denied being wrong.
5.       In the rejoinder filed by respondents no.1 and 2, they reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in written version of opposite parties No.1 & 2.
6.       The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
7.       After hearing Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 
8.       Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/opposite party no.1.
9.       We have heard Counsel for the appellant, at the preliminary stage, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 
10.       Counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that as the air tickets were booked by respondents no.1 and 2, online i.e. through internet, as such, only the Forum, where Headquarter of the appellant is situated, will have territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. He further submitted that even compensation awarded by the Forum, is on the higher side.  He averred that the order under challenge needs to be set aside, and the appeal be allowed.
11.       It may be stated here that similar issues, as have been raised, in the present case, have already been dealt with, by this Commission, against the same appellant (Spicejet Pvt. Ltd.), in a case titled as Spicejet Limited Vs. Ranju Aery, First Appeal No.347 of 2015, decided on 29.12.2015, filed against the order of the District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh. In that case also, tickets were purchased by the complainant online i.e. through internet and their flight was cancelled, which caused mental agony and physical harassment to her and her family members. This Commission, in that case, while discussing the said issues, in detail, finally dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant, while holding as under:-

“In the present case, offer was made to purchase air tickets through internet. It was accepted and tickets, through internet, were sent on payment of money, to the complainant, at Chandigarh. In terms of above provisions, it can safely be said that the air tickets would be taken to have been sent at complainant's place of business/residence. The acceptance of contract would also be deemed to have been communicated at the above place. By reading the provisions of CPA 1986; I.T. Act, 2000; and with the help of ratio of the judgment in  A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and anr.'s case (supra), we can safely hold that, where contracts for services and/or goods are entered into over the internet (or online as such transactions are commonly referred to), then, for the purposes of consumer complaints, part of the cause of action arises interalia, at the complainant’s place of business, if acceptance of the contract is communicated to her through the internet, including the medium of email. Further, irrespective of the fact, whether or not the contract is one made over the internet, cause of action would also continue to arise at any of the places (a) where the contract is performed or is to be performed or (b) where money under the contract is either payable or paid or (c) where repudiation of the contract is received, if any. As such, it cannot be disputed that a Consumer Fora  is competent to entertain a consumer complaint, even if only an infinitesimal part of cause of action arises within its territorial jurisdiction. As a result, territorial jurisdiction over a consumer complaint would lie with the Consumer Fora situated at any place, where any of the aforementioned causes of action arises. This, of course, is in addition to the other places, where a consumer may choose to file a complaint in accordance with the other provisions of Section 11 (2) of the CPA, 1986.

Having said that, we cannot forget that all consumers of our country do not necessarily have a place of business. Take the case of a student or a housewife or an employee, who has no place of business and who places an order over the internet from his/her home. As such, they cannot be denied refuge, under territorial jurisdiction of the local Consumer Fora. That would be discriminatory and unfair. In fact, they are even more vulnerable and need even more protection as consumers. The concept of place of residence is not new and already exists in Section 11 (2) of the CPA 1986. But the point is that place of residence is not unknown to law, for the purpose of territorial jurisdiction. We, therefore, further add an extension that, in case, a consumer does not have a ‘place of business’ then the said term as stated in the paragraphs above, is to be read as place of residence.

It may be stated here that the CPA 1986 is a benevolent legislation, the main object of which is not only to protect the consumers but also to provide them a speedy and simple dispute redressal mechanism, free from hassle.

The Hon'ble National Commission, in Dr.Ravi Ghai and ors. Case (supra) when rendering judgment to the contrary, did not notice the ratio of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and anr.'s case (supra) and also the provisions of I.T. Act 2000. Further, as has been noted above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, has said in a case of Trimex International FZE Limited Dubai's case (supra) that emails exchanged between the parties, online, i.e. through internet constitutes a contract.

Further contention of Counsel for the appellant that compensation awarded to the respondent, is on the higher side, is devoid of merit. We are of the opinion, that it is rather on the lower side. The air tickets were booked by the respondent, online, through internet from Chandigarh, for a holiday to Bagdogra, alongwith her family members, through yatra.com, for journey on 23.06.2015. Tickets for return journey were booked from Bagdogra to Kolkata and connecting flight of the appellant/opposite party from Kolkata to New Delhi, for 30.06.2015, for which, an amount of Rs.70,900/-, was paid through debit card. When family members were waiting at Kolkata Airport, for boarding connecting flight to New Delhi on 30.06.2015, the complainant came to know that the flight has been cancelled. Alternate flight was not offered/arranged. The complainant was lucky to have relatives in Koklata, from whom, money was borrowed and an amount of Rs.80,855/- was paid to another airlines to reach New Delhi via Mumbai, from where they travelled through bus, to reach Chandigarh. Lot of harassment might have been caused to the entire family of the respondent including her, which necessitated grant of compensation. In this appeal also, no explanation has been given by the appellant, as to what were the reasons, for which flight was not operated on the said date, that was the only flight, which was cancelled. As such, no ground, whatsoever is made out by the appellant, to set aside the order under challenge.”

12.       In view of above, it is held that since the issues involved in the present appeal, are similar to the issues raised in the case, referred to above, as such, the same (present appeal), also being devoid of merit, must fail, and is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the Forum is upheld.
13.       Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
14.       The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

29.12.2015

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

      MEMBER

 

 

Rg