Order-15.
Date-03/08/2017.
Shri Kamal De, President.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Complainant’s case, in short, is that he is a General Manager, I & A, Senior Officer at SBI. He was on holiday and had to join the office at Kolkata on 25-10-2016. The complainant booked a ticket through Make My Trip for 25-10-2016. The OP1 issued a confirmed ticket in the name of the complainant at Spice Jet being flight No.SG263 which had a schedule departure at 05:55 a.m. at New Delhi on 25-10-2016. In the e-ticket it was stated that the check in for the said flight would start two hours before the schedule departure and the checking would close 60 minutes prior to the schedule departure of the flight as mentioned in said e-ticket. The complainant arrived at the terminus in New Delhi at around 4:30 a.m. i.e. almost one hour and 30 minutes prior to the schedule departure of the said flight. After reaching the said Spice Jet Counter at 04:55 a.m. and standing in the queue, the complainant was shocked to hear that the check in procedure had already been over and he would not be able to avail flight. He was also informed that the time of the flight was rescheduled from 05:55 a.m. to 05:30 a.m. and due to such rescheduling, time for check in was already over. Complainant was also informed that the reschedule time has already been sent to the complainant’s mobile via SMS but the complainant has alleged that no such SMS was received by the complainant. The complainant denied that he received such SMS. The complainant also submits that in respect of repeated requests due to urgency of the complainant to join his office and the official work, the complainant also requested the official of OP2 for arrangement for any other morning flight but he was informed that all the morning flight was booked and he could only reach his destination by flying evening flight. Complainant called OP1 and requested them for an alternative arrangement for morning flight but OP1 did not pay any heed to his request. The complainant had to cancel the said ticket and had to book an evening flight on his own in Vistara for a total consideration of Rs.6,922/- which is much higher than his last ticket which cost him Rs.3,526/-. The complainant has alleged deficiency in service against the OPs and also harassment, mental pain and agony. Complainant has also alleged unfair trade practice against the OPs for not refunding him total fare of the ticket and not providing any intimation to the complainant for changing schedule of departure of the flight. The complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.1 lakh and also Rs. 2 lakhs for harassment along with other reliefs in terms of prayer of the complaint.
OP1 has contested the case in filing written version contending, inter alia, that the present complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either on merit or in law as the answering OP being the booking facilitator duly discharged its limited liability, inter alia, issuing confirmed ticket to the complainant. It is stated that contents of the complaint are wholly misconceived, vexatious, misleading and unsustainable. It is stated that there is no deficiency on the part of the answering OP and therefore, no case is made out against the answering OP under C.P. Act. It is stated that the complainant and OP1 are covered by terms and conditions agreed between them at the time of booking and as enumerated in the user agreement. The complainant has accepted the terms and condition by accepting the user agreement at the time of making payments/booking under question. It is stated that this OP performed all its limited duties by booking the confirmed Air-tickets in question in flight being operated by OP2 and issuing confirmed Air-ticket thereafter. Complainant was denied to board the flight by OP2 on the ground that he was delayed in reporting to check in counter and hence, answering OP cannot held liable for the same. It is stated that it was a fault at the end of Airline if Airline failed to inform either the answering OP or the complainant about the said reschedule. It is stated that if OP2 would have informed the complainant about the said reschedule and there was no fault at the end of the answering OP. Moreover, the full amount was refunded to the complainant. It is stated that this OP performed by its duty and it cannot be held liable for the same. It is stated that this OP has performed all its duty and it cannot be held liable for the action on the part of the OP2. This OP has prayed for rejection of the case against it.
OP2 has also contested the case in filing written version contending, inter alia, that the present complaint is false, frivolous, misconceived. It is submitted that the complainant booked the ticket of flight SG263 from Delhi to Kolkata on 25-10-2016 and the time of departure was 05:55 hours. The said ticket was booked through OP1. It is stated that due to Runway closure at Chennai Airport (since the flight had to go to Chennai after Kolkata) the schedule of the flight was changed and the flight was preponed from 05:55 hours to 05:30 hours. It is submitted that an intimation in this regard was given to all the passengers through SMS and Email who provided the same through mobile numbers and e-mail address on 14-10-2016 itself. It is stated that since the complainant had booked his ticket through OP1 and had not provided any office contact details the answering being OP2 had sent SMS and email to OP1. It is stated that since the answering OP1 already communicated about the changes in schedule to OP1 (on account of non-availability of any communication particulars of the complainant) the answering OP discharged its liability and, as such, there was no deficiency of service, whatsoever, on the part of the answering OP. This OP has prayed for dismissal of the case. It is stated that the complainant did not reach the Airport as per the changed schedule already communicated to him. OP, moreover, has already remitted the entire ticket amount to the complainant. It is submitted that complainant had booked the ticket in question for a sum of Rs.3,301/- and as a goodwill gesture OP2 has already remitted entire ticket amount to the complainant through OP1 which the complainant has admittedly accepted. This OP has prayed for dismissal of the case.
Point for Decision
- Whether the OPs have been deficient in rendering service to the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
We have perused the documents on record i.e. Xerox copy of booking of Air-ticket from Delhi to Kolkata in SG263, Spice Jet, Xerox copy of Vistara e-ticket from Delhi to Kolkata on 25-10-2016 as filed by the complainant.
Seen the Xerox copy of Sms and email to OP1 by OP2, Xerox copy of CAR attending car (Civil Aviation Requirements) and other documents on record as filed from the side of the OP2.
We find that the complainant booked the ticket IN SG263 from Delhi to Kolkata on 25-10-2016. The schedule date of travel was on 25-10-2016 and the time of departure was 05:55 hours. The said ticket was booked through OP1. It is submitted from the side of the OP2 that due to runway closure at Chennai Airport (since the flight had to go to Chennai after Kolkata), the schedule of the flight was changed and the flight was preponed from 05:55 hours to 05:30 hours. We find that OP2 preponed the flight and intimated the said change to all the passengers well in advance. We also find that the intimation had been sent to the agent of the complainant being OP1. We also find the print out of the said intimation was sent to OP1 having been annexed with the written version. It also appears that OP2 had communicated about the change in schedule to OP1 on account of non-availability any communication particulars of the complainant who had not provided his mobile number and e-mail address to OP2 itself. So, it appears that since the complainant had booked his ticket through OP1 and had not provided any of his contact details, OP2 had sent Sms and email to OP1. So, we think that OP2 has discharged its liability and, as such, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP2.
We also find that OP2 refunded a sum of Rs.3,301/- to the complainant as the price of the ticket. OP2 has remitted a sum of Rs.3,301 to OP1 i.e. the agent of the complainant through whom the ticket in question was booked. So, we find that OP2 has also refunded the full ticket amount to the complainant. Moreover, we find that in the e-ticket in flight No.SG263 it is clearly stated that the check in for the said flight will start two hours before the schedule departure and will close 60 minutes prior to the scheduled departure of the flight but the complainant arrived at the terminus at New Delhi at about 4:30 a.m. as per his own version i.e. almost 1 hour and 30 minutes prior to the scheduled departure of the said flight. It is, however, denied by OP2 that the complainant reached at the Spice Jet Counter at 4:30 hours as alleged. It is stated by OP2 that the complainant reached at the counter at 05:05 hours and the complainant was rightly told that the check in procedure was over and the counter was closed for the flight in question. There is no document, however, before us that the complainant reached at New Delhi terminus at around 4:30 a.m. We find oath vs. oath in this regard. But the fact remains that the complainant did not reach at the terminus at New Delhi two hours before scheduled departure as per his own version.
It is not denied from the side of the complainant that there was no runway closure at Chennai Airport. We know that airlines operates in accordance with and as per the directions of the Government and Regulatory Authorities viz. DGCA and ATC, AAI and CAR etc. Whenever there is any exigency, i.e., either there is any VIP movement or bad, weather or any other exigency, such as, Air Force operators, Runway closures, the Airlines are under obligation to follow instructions and terms of the aforesaid regulatory authorities. In the present case, there was runway closure at Chennai Airport since the flight was scheduled to go for Chennai after Kolkata, the OP2 Airline was compelled to preponed the flight. The said fact of runway closure at Chennai has not been denied from the side of the complainant.
We find that the OP2 had already communicated about the changes in schedule to OP1 on account of non-availability of any communication particulars of the complainant much ahead on 14-10-2016 itself. We find that intimation had been sent to the complainant through OP1 and the document to this effect has been annexed along with the written version. If OP1 has not intimated the same regarding rescheduled of the flight, the deficiency lies with OP1.
Notwithstanding all such dispute and contrary, the fact remains the complainant had to avail an evening flight on his own in Vistara for a consideration amount of Rs.6,922/- which is higher than his last ticket which cost him Rs.3,526/-. We also find that OP2 has already remitted entire ticket amount of the first ticket of Rs.3,301/- as a goodwill gesture which the complainant had admittedly accepted. In view of the aforesaid fact of receipt of entire ticket amount by the complainant without any demur and protest, the complainant is left with no right and/or cause of action to file the present complaint against OP2.
Be that as it may, we think that if there was any deficiency in rendering service to the complainant, that lies with OP1. OP1 failed to intimate about the change of scheduled time of the flight to the complainant when OP1 was informed about such change of time will ahead on 14-10-2016 by OP2. We think that OP1has been deficient rendering service to the complainant. We think that OP1 should compensate the residual amount of Vistara flight borne by the complainant. We are also surprised why the complainant is claiming such a huge amount as compensation when the value of the ticket is Rs.6,922/-. Moreover, it is apparent that complainant himself was late in arriving at the terminus at New Delhi.
Consequently, the case merits success in part.
Hence,
Ordered
That the case be and the same is allowed on contest against OP1 and dismissed against OP2.
OP1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.3621/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of9 percent p.a. w.e.f. 25-10-2016 till payment within one month from the date of this order apart from litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
Failure to comply with the order will entitle the complainant to put the order into execution under appropriate provision in C.P. Act.
