D.o.F: 22/3/12
D.o.O: 30/9/2014
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.NO.75/12
Dated this, the 30th day of September 2014
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA K.G : MEMBER
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
1.Niyasa.K, s/o Kunhammad,
R/near Subramanya Temple,
Ceramics Road, Korakkod, Po Kasaragod. : complainants
2. Shamsuddeen.A.K, S/o Late Abdulla,
R/at Fort road, Kasaragod Po.
(Adv. Anantharama.P,Kasararagod)
1.King Fisher, King Fisher House,
Western Express High Way, Vilaparlia(E), : Opposite parties
Mumbai 0-22 26262200-022-55029625.
2. The Manager of Riya Travelrs Kasaragod,
City Gate Building,Chandragiri road,
Kasaragod Po, Kasaragod.
(Adv.Rameshan.K.V)
ORDER
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
The complainants have booked their air ticket from Delhi to Bangalore and Bangalore to Mangalore from opposite parties office by remitting an amount of Rs.11,098/-. The complainants were boarded the flight of the opposite party from Delhi on 22/2/12 and reached Bangalore on 23/2/12. As per the schedule the opposite party has to departure their flight from Bangalore at 7.30 a.m on 23/2/12, but on reaching the counter they were informed that the flight to be scheduled to Mangalore is cancelled . The opposite party herein failed to make alternative arrangements to the passenger or to repay the fare etc due to the deficiency in service from the opposite party caused heavy damages to the complainants and hence the complaint.
2. Notice to the opposite party was served and opposite party appeared and filed version. Complainant was examined as PW1. Ext.A1 was marked. Opposite party’s counsel was cross examined PW1. Opposite party in his version contended that the complainants have concealed from the Hon’ble forum that flight No.I.T.2741 for 23/2/12 was cancelled and combined with IT.2467 departing for Mangalore from Bangalore on 23/2/12 at 12.20 p.m for operational reasons, the opposite party had informed the complainants vide SMS on their registered mobile number, which was produced by the complainants at the time of booking of the tickets that flight No.2741 had been changed to flight IT 2467 will depart at 12.20 p.m and annexure No.1&2 are the proof for the same and there is no negligence from the part of opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. Points for consideration
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the side of opposite party
2. If so what is the relief and costs
Point No.1: On perusal of document produced by the complainant, ie, the flight ticket issued by the opposite party shows that the complainants had booked the ticket to travel from Bangalore to Mangalore and paid Rs.11098/- as ticket fare. The main allegation of the complainant is admitted by the opposite party , that is cancellation of the flight No. IT2741 scheduled to be on 23/2/2012. The further allegation that opposite party failed to provide alternative arrangements to travel from Bangalore to Mangalore was totally denied by the opposite party. The document filed along with the version by the opposite party is the internet downloaded particulars of SMS alleged to have been sent to the complainant by the opposite party about the cancellation of flight and arrangements of another flight. But it is highly pertinent to note the fact that the alleged message was send by the opposite party in the complainant’s mobile number. It is not possible to arrive into a conclusion on perusal of SMS details of opposite party whether the message send through e-mail is despatched /delivered to the person in whose favour the same is sent. If the opposite party was produced the Airtel network details of the complainant’s call particulars would definitely show whether SMS is delivered to him or not. While cross examining the complainant, he totally denied the suggestion that intimation with regard to the cancellation of flight and he further added that opposite party has not added ‘0 before his number, there is no chance of delivery of the SMS. The forum convinced the case of the complainant that the cell number of the complainant belongs to Kerala and the office of the opposite party is situated at Mumbai and only if 0 is added before a particular mobile number , only then the information will be served to the recipient. The Forum is surprised to see that opposite party is highly negligent in dealing with the very important issue like cancellation of a flight in a very irresponsible manner the opposite party were least bothered about the inconvenience caused to the passenger. Otherwise opposite party ought to have at least to intimate about the cancellation of flight directly through telephone since admittedly the opposite party had a definite case that the contact number of the complainant was with them but still the opposite party never tried to contact him directly and moreover as per the annexure No.3 ie, the condition of contract clearly states about on what ground flight will be cancelled by the company.
|
Cancellation and Changes in Flight Schedule - |
In case of circumstances beyond our control (including, but without limitation, meteorological conditions, mechanical failures, acts of nature, force majeure, strikes, riots, civil, commotion's, embargoes, wars, hostilities, disturbances, government regulations, orders, demands or requirements, shortage of labour, fuel or facilities, or labour difficulties of Kingfisher Airlines or others all actual, threatened or reported) we May without notice cancel or delay a flight.
If due to such circumstances we cancel such flight, we shall: 1. | Refund the entire cost of the ticket to the Passenger through the point of sale, or | 2. | If the Passenger so requests, carry the Passenger on another of its scheduled passenger services on which space is available or reroute the Passenger to the destination indicated on the ticket or applicable portion thereof by the scheduled services of another carrier, or by means of surface transportation, in which case no refund will be payable. |
| |
In this particular case, the above conditions were not at all proved by the opposite party for cancellation of flight.
Moreover PW1 sustained heavy damages by way of arranging taxi to travel from Bangalore to Mangalore and Mangalore to Kasaragod and also the waste of time and other bodily discomfort and mental agony due to the act of the Ist opposite party.
In the case of M/s Express Travels & Ors Vs. M.R.Shah & Ors reported in 2002(2)CPR 12(NC), it was held by Hon’ble National Commission if cancellation of flight by airline but then without notice to complainant customer and refused to refund the ticket amounts to deficiency in service .
Therefore by considering all the above facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the PW1 succeeded in attributing deficiency in service from the part of opposite party.
In the result, the complaint is allowed by directing the Ist opposite o party to refund Rs.11098/- being the ticket fare along with Rs.11000/- which was spend the taxi charge. The opposite party further directing to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation with cost of Rs.5000/-. On failure the opposite party is directed to pay 12% interest for Rs.22,098/- from the date of order till the realization of amount.
Ext.A1- flight ticket
PW1- Niyasa.K- complainant No.1
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
eva
