Maharashtra

StateCommission

A/08/1392

SUNIL REGO - Complainant(s)

Versus

KINGFISHER (FORMERLY AIR DECCAN) - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

07 Jul 2010

ORDER


BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
First Appeal No. A/08/1392
(Arisen out of Order Dated null in Case No. CC/07/112 of District Mumbai(Suburban))
1. SUNIL REGO2/B,ROOM NO.201,DAMODAR PARK,L.B.S.MARG,GHATKOPAR (W) MUMBAI 86MUMBAIMaharastra ...........Appellant(s)

Versus
1. KINGFISHER (FORMERLY AIR DECCAN)35,CUNNINGHAM ROAD,OPP-CANARA BANK,BANGLOREBANGALOREMaharastra ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE :
Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBERHon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
PRESENT :Adv.Datta Mane,Advocate, for V.P.PATHANKAR, Advocate for the Respondent 0

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

Per Shri S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:

         This appeal arises out of order dated 30/08/2008 passed in consumer complaint no.112/2007,   Shri Sunil Rego V/s Air Deccan  passed by Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban (Forum below in short).

          Admittedly, appellant/complainant had taken a return journey air ticket of opponent/Air Deccan for traveling from Delhi to Mumbai on 28/12/2006 of flight no. DN-603.  The said flight came to be cancelled.  Request was made to the airline either to make alternate arrangement for return journey to Mumbai or on any another flight or to make arrangement for their stay in five star hotel.   Air Deccan refused to provide any such concession and therefore, appellant decided to travel by another airline available and booked the flight at around 5.00 p.m. and came to Mumbai and therefore, consumer complaint is filed.  Consumer complaint came to be rejected and feeling aggrieved thereby, this appeal is filed.

          Complainant/ Shri Sunil Rego did not mention any grounds or objections in the appeal and he was directed to rectify the defects.  Till today he failed to do so.  Respondent was also directed to comply with the direction to provide  report of Ground Enginnering staff showing tha the flight cannot take place becuase defects were incurable.  Counsel for the respondent failed to provide such report and stated that the record pertaining to said file is destroyed long back by  airline  which is now known as "Kingfisher".

          We heard Adv.Mr.Datta Mane for respondent.  None for appellant.  Perused the record.

          It is the case of the respondent that appellant was offered either of reund of ticket of the cancelled flight or alternative an  accommodation in other flight.  The appellant opted for accepting  the refund even  if the appellant had chosen nott make his own arrangement for stay, no liability therefore could come on the respondnet.  In the given circumstances, Forum below applied said resoning and we ffind no fault with it.   Hence, we pass the following order:-

:-ORDER-:

 1.Appeal is not admitted and stands rejected. 2. Parties are left to bear thier own costs.3.Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties as per rule. 

 

PRONOUNCED :
Dated : 07 July 2010

[Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode]PRESIDING MEMBER[Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar]Member