DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

1.                 Capt. Gulshan Satija s/o Sh. D.R. Satija

2.                 Ms. Deepika Satija w/o Capt. Gulshan Satija

3.                 Ms. Namita Satija d/o Capt. Gulshan Satija

4.                 Kunal Satija s/o Capt. Gulshan Satija.

All residents of H.No.268, Sector-4, MDC, Panchkula.

                                      ---Complainants.

Versus

1.     Kingfisher Airlines Limited, Kingfisher House, Western Express Highway, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400099, India

2.     Randhawa Tours & Travels, through its owner/prop/partner, SCO 38-39, Cabin No.11-12, Basement, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.

---Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh. Mukesh Sharma, Counsel for the complainants

                        Sh. Y.S. Dhillon, Counsel for OP No.1

                        Sh. Mohinder Singh Randhawa, Proprietor of OP No.2

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           Capt. Gulshan Satija and others have filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) praying for the following reliefs :-

“i)        To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- spent by complainants (Rs.7500 for taxi fare, Rs.10,000 advance for stay of 27.05.2011 and Rs.22,000 for additional stay plus other travelling and food expenses of Rs.9000-10,000/- alongwith 12% interest.

ii)        To pay sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental, physical harassment caused to all the complainants.

iii)       Any other order may kindly be passed in the facts and circumstances of the present complaint on which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.”

2.                           In brief, the case of the complainants is that they booked four tickets of Kingfisher Airlines (Opposite party No.1) for visiting Srinagar and paid Rs.8,934/- per person.  Opposite party No.2 issued the electronic tickets on behalf of opposite party No.1 on 9.5.2011. The flight (No.IT 2316) was scheduled to take off from the Chandigarh to Srinagar on 27.5.2011 at 11:25 am. The complainants also booked their return tickets for 30.5.2011 for which they paid Rs.4,477/- per ticket.

                   According to the complainants in order to board the flight they reached the airport in time but they got the message that the flight has been delayed.  Thereafter they received two more messages regarding delay in flight.  Subsequently the complainants checked in and they were issued the boarding pass. 

                   According to the complainants they were made to wait for two more hours as the servers were down and finally the airport authorities confirmed the cancellation of the flight at 3:00 p.m. It has been averred that the opposite parties failed to make any alternate arrangement for the complainants in spite of requests.  It has further been averred that since the complainants had already made bookings for their stay on 27.5.2011 and had also made the payment, they were left with no alternative except to travel by road.   The complainants had to pay a sum of Rs.7,500/- as taxi charges for reaching Jammu and thereafter boarded the flight of Jet Lite Airlines on 28.5.2011 for Srinagar.  It has further been averred that due to the act of the opposite parties, the complainants had also to extend their stay in Srinagar by two more days and they ultimately reached back on 1.6.2011.  On 7.6.2011 complainant No.1 sent an email to opposite party No.1 informing about the harassment suffered by his family.  In response he received reply on 9.6.2011 whereby the opposite party apologized for the inconvenience caused but averred that the cancellation was due to inclement weather conditions. 

                   In these circumstances the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.                           In its written statement opposite party No.1 admitted that the complainants booked the tickets in question.   It has also been admitted that initially the flight from Chandigarh to Srinagar was delayed and was rescheduled due to inclement weather.  It has been averred that the boarding passes were issued under the hope that the weather conditions would improve at Srinagar. However, when the weather conditions persisted at Srinagar, coupled with watch hour restrictions imposed at Srinagar Airport, opposite party No.1 cancelled the flight (IT 2316) on 27.5.2011.  It has been averred that flight disruptions due to bad weather conditions, air traffic congestion, technical snags or operational exigencies are not uncommon in the Aviation industry.   It has further been averred that the same is mentioned in the terms and conditions which are in consonance with the guidelines laid down by the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA).  It has been denied that the complainant was refused any alternate arrangement.  It has been averred that the complainants were given the option of either re-booking on the next available flight or refund.  The complainants themselves opted for full refund and accordingly the refund was made to them. It has been pleaded that the complainants themselves opted for travel by taxi. 

                   Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made

4.                           Opposite party No.2 filed its separate written reply.  It has been admitted that the tickets in question were booked by it. However, it has been pleaded that its role was only with regard to booking the tickets and it had no role in the cancellation of the flight or making alternative arrangement for the complainants which were within the domain of opposite party No.1.  It has been averred that the refund was made to the complainants as they opted for the same.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made

5.                           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, proprietor of Opposite Party No.2  and have gone through the documents on record.

6.                           Admittedly the flight in question, for which the complainants had booked the tickets, was cancelled on 27.5.2011.  According to the ld. Counsel for the opposite parties, the flight was cancelled due to inclement weather conditions and watch hour restrictions at Srinagar Airport. 

7.                           The ld. Counsel for the complainants has placed reliance on the “Departure log report based on IST for the period 27.5.2011” received from the Airports Authority of India, annexed with Annexure C-27, to prove that as many as 13 flights took off on 27.5.2011.  However, a perusal of the same shows that there was not even a single flight amongst them scheduled for Srinagar.  Even otherwise, the complainants do not dispute that the flight was cancelled, which according to them was due to technical reasons.

8.                           It has next been argued by the ld. Counsel for the complainants that if the flight was cancelled, the opposite parties should have made alternate arrangements for them.     On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the opposite parties placed reliance on condition with regard to cancellation and changes in flight schedule, which is reproduced as under:-

 “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.”

It has been argued by the ld. Counsel for the opposite parties that as per the above extracted condition, they offered to re-book the complainants on the next available flight, i.e. on the next day, or refund of their ticket amount, but the complainants opted for refund. According to the ld. Counsel, the refund was made on the request of the complainants vide cheque dated 4.6.2011 and the same was in consonance with the above extracted clause. The complainants did not controvert these facts.  The complainants have not placed on record any document to show that they made any request to the opposite parties for making alternate arrangements for them.  Hence, we are of the view that no deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of the opposite parties

9.                           In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this complaint and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

10.                       Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

16.1.2013.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER