BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 31st December 2014
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.98/2013
(Admitted on 06.04.2013)
K.Suresh,
So. Late K.Krishnappa Jogi,
Aged about 59 years,
Residing at Krishna Nidhi,
Anegundi, Bejai,
Mangalore. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for Complainant: Sri K.Premanath)
VERSUS
M s.Jet Airways,
Rambhavan Complex,
Kodialbail,
Mangalore 575 003.
Represented by its Manager. .…… OPPOSITE PARTY
(Advocate for Opposite Party: Sri.Shakeel Mazhar)
***********
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY:
I. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service as against the Opposite Party claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant stated that, he has purchased ticket from the Opposite Party to travel from Mangalore to Mumbai and Nagpur by E-booking by paying Rs.17,178/- for himself and his wife. The flight was scheduled at Mangalore at 11.20 A.M on 28.12.2012 and from Mumbai at 15.15 hours. It is stated that, Complainant and his wife had reached the Mangalore Airport in time and had complied all the requirements but the Complainant and his wife were not given boarding pass and were not allowed to travel in the scheduled flight inspite of request made by the Complainant and later both of them were travelled in another flight. It is stated that, the Complainant was very much upset and shocked as the Complainant had to attend a function at Nagpur on 29.12.2012. It is stated that, the Opposite Party has neither adjusted the amount nor refunded the amount paid by the Complainant. Instead the Complainant was put to lot of mental tension, hardship and contended that the attitude of the Opposite Party amounts to deficiency in service and hence the Complainant filed the above complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.17,178/- towards the value of air ticket with interest at 12% p.a. and award compensation of Rs.25,000/- and cost by allowing the complaint.
II. Version notice served to the Opposite Party by R.P.A.D. Opposite Party appeared through their counsel filed version and contended that Complainant has reached the Airport late by 10 minutes and the flight scheduled on 28.12.2012 from Mangalore to Mumbai and the same has to be depart at 11.20 hours but the Complainant and his wife arrived around 11.00 A.M. to board the flight and was declared late on arrival. Resultantly, they were refused boarding passes for the said flight and hence they could not travel on the said flight and there is no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party and sought for dismissal of the complaint.
III. In support of the complaint, Sri.K.Suresh (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served by the Opposite Party. Ex C1 to C4 were marked on behalf of the Complainant. One Sri.Sudhendra Pai (RW1), Assistant Manager – Key Accounts of Opposite Party filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex R1 and R2 were marked on behalf of the Opposite Party. Both parties have produced notes of arguments.
In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i): Affirmative.
Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
IV. Points No.(i) to (iii):
In the instant case, the facts which are admitted is that, the Complainant has purchased two tickets from the Opposite Party to travel from Mangalore to Mumbai and Nagpur by E-booking by paying Rs.17,178/-. The flight was scheduled at Mangalore on 28.12.2012 at 11.20 AM from Mumbai at 15.15 hours.
Now the points are in dispute between the parties before this Forum is that, the Complainant contended that himself and his wife had to travel in another flight of the Opposite Party by paying Rs.17,178/- and they were reached the Mangalore Airport in time and had complied all the requirements but the Complainant and his wife were not given boarding pass and were not allowed to travel in the schedule flight inspite of request made by the Complainant. Hence came up with this complaint.
The Opposite Party on the other hand contended that, the Complainant and his wife were not reached the Mangalore Airport in time. In fact the flight ticket which scheduled on 28.12.2012 from Mangalore to Mumbai and the same has been departed at 11.20 hours but the Complainant and his wife arrived late at around 11.00 a.m. to board the flight and was declared late on arrival and refused boarding pass for the said flight and the Opposite Party not held responsible for any deficiency.
On perusal of the oral/documentary evidence available on record, no doubt the Complainant purchased two E-tickets from the Opposite Party but in chief-examination affidavit, it is categorically admitted by the Complainant that, they had reached the Mangalore Airport at 10.50 a.m. In fact the E-ticket produced by the Complainant i.e., Ex C2 clearly stipulates with regard to timings for check-in. In the separate column it is mentioned that “check-in starts 2 hours before scheduled departure of the flight and closes 45 minutes prior to the departure time. We recommend you to report at the check-in counter atleast 2 hours prior to departure time”. When that being so, it is the bounden duty of the Complainant to report the Airport before two hours to the scheduled departure of the flight. But in the instant case, the Complainant and his wife came very late and not in time, under that circumstances, the Opposite Party is not responsible for any deficiency of service and we are declined to consider the complaint of the Complainant in this case.
However, in order to meet the ends of justice, the Opposite Party should have cancelled their bookings and refunded atleast 50% of the flight tickets charges or some reasonable concession to the Complainant as they have not availed the service of the Opposite Party in full and moreover, the Complainant and his wife have travelled in Opposite Party’s flight atleast they should have been given some concession instead of non-refunding the entire amount. With the above observation, the complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite Party is directed to refund 50% of the E-ticket charges to the Complainant. There is no order as to cost of the proceedings. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to refund 50% of the E-ticket charges to the Complainant. There is no order to cost of the proceedings. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 7 dictated to the Sheristedar typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of December, 2014)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 – Sri.K.Suresh – Complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1 – : Postal acknowledgement.
Ex C2 – 20.09.2012: E-Ticket.
Ex C3 – 11.01.2013: Lawyer’s notice sent to the Opposite Party on behalf of the Complainant.
Ex C4 – 23.01.2013: Reply sent by the Opposite Party.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
RW1 – Sri.Sudhendra Pai, Assistant Manager – Key Accounts of Opposite Party.
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party:
Ex R1 - : Copy of the printout of the terms and conditions of the policy of the Jet Airways.
Ex R2 – 29.05.2013: Authorization letter issued by the Opposite Party in favour of Mr.Sudhendra Pai.
Dated:31-12-2014 PRESIDENT
