1. Ms.Natasha Garg complainant through her attorney has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act (herein-after called as ‘the Act’) against MakeMy Trip India Private Limited (herein-after referred to as ‘Opposite Party No.1-MakeMy Trip’) and Jet Airways (India) Limited, through its Manager (herein-after called as ‘Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways’) on the allegations of deficiency in service as well as negligent act, with further prayer to direct Opposite Parties to refund of Rs.13,396/- being the amount of tickets for travel from Amritsar to Kolkata, besides refund of Rs.12,356/-+Rs.5142/- being the amount of tickets for travel from Delhi to Kolkata of INDIGO Airlines alongwith interest besides refund of Rs.900/- being the amount of excess baggage for travel from Amritsar to Kokkata, and for refund of Rs.305/- being the amount of taxi charges and to pay Rs.4 lacs as compensation on account of mental harassment and agony by the complainant besides Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant was looking for travel to Kolkata with her son namely Master Aditya Hedge aged 4 years and was intimated by the immense advertisements circulated by Opposite Party No.1-MakeMy Trip about cracking best deals from best airlines on their website and the complainant as per the representations from Opposite Party No.1-MakeMy Trip, booked tickets at Amritsar on 21st December, 2014 for travel to Kolkata on 7th March, 2015 with Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways; that Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways booked the tickets for travel from Amritsar to Kolkata in two parts one from Amritsar to Delhi and other from Delhi to Kolkata; that the complainant in order to avail the best prices had booked the tickets well in advance and thereafter paid a total sum of Rs.13,396/- as booking cost for her travel to Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways; that to the utter surprise of the complainant when she reached airport on 7th March, 2015 to board the flight for Kolkata, she was informed that the flight PNR No.PCPEIF is delayed by 2 hours and would take off at 08.20 hours and issued boarding pass to the complainant for travel from Amritsar to Delhi and that Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways never intimated the delay in flight to the complainant before hand and thus causing her to wait at the airport with her son causing harassment and inconvenience to the complainant; that Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways also issued boarding pass to complainant at Amritsar Airport for travel from Delhi to Kolkata as the same was under the same PNR and departure time of the said flight was mentioned as 8:55; that the complainant repeatedly requested the staff of Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways at Amritsar Airport to check the schedule as the boarding time mentioned to be 8:10 and departure time 8:55 of the flight from Delhi to Kolkata will not be feasible as the flight from Amritsar to Delhi is of 1 hour 15 minutes duration and the flight will not reach in time to catch the connecting flight; that the complainant also informed the staff that it is very important for her to reach Kolkata on time as she has to resume her job and the staff of Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways assured the complainant that the flight will only leave from Delhi to Kolkata when this flight reaches Delhi and the connecting flight will leave thereafter. It is also the case of the complainant that as per the tickets issued by Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways both the passengers were allowed to carry 15 kg each as check-in-baggage and in addition to it they were also allowed two cabin bags upto weight 7 kg each i.e. 4 bags in all but for complainant with the child in her arm, it was not possible to carry 4 bags as permissible so she packed two bags, out of which, one was weighting 15 kg while the other was 18 kg and had no cabin bags as it was not convenient for her to carry more than 2 suitcase alongwith the child in her arm, but the staff at Amritsar Airport was too callous to allow this arrangement and charged Rs.900/- extra for the excess 3 kg of baggage when each of them could carry 15+7=22 kg separately and it was only for the sake of convenience that the complainant packed her baggage in one suitcase, which weighed only 18 kg instead of 2 bags of 15 kg and 7 kg each and it was still less than the permissible limit of 22 kg (15+7) and left with no other option, the complainant had to accept the illegal demands of Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways and Rs.900/- was paid for excess baggage for travel from Amritsar to Kolkata; that ultimately, after the flight took off from Amritsar, it landed at Delhi Airport at about 9:20 am and contrary to the claims of Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways, the connecting flight from Delhi to Kolkata had departed by that time and the complainant was left stranded due to the negligence and deficiency in service of Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways; that the complainant requested the staff of Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways to adjust her in some other flight as she had missed her flight due to Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways negligence upon which Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways did not pay any heed to such requests and denied any such accommodation and asked the complainant to make her own arrangements; that as it was very urgent for her to reach Kolkata at the earliest, the complainant requested her husband to book flight on the spot for travel from Delhi to Kolkata and the complainant was confirmed vacant seats in the flight of INDIGO Airlines (6E-201) departing at 11:55 AM from Terminal-I of the Delhi Airport, so the complainant booked the tickets in the said flight at spot rates which were much higher than the advance booking rates and spent Rs.12,356/- for booking the said tickets with INDIGO Airlines and thereafter, the complainant approached the staff of Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways and told that she has got confirmed tickets and her flight departs at 11:55 AM so her luggage be handed over at the earliest to which the staff promised the same, but to the contrary, the complainant was made to wait for about 2 hours before her luggage was ultimately handed over by the staff of Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways at about 11:10 am; that after receiving her baggage, the complainant rushed to Terminal-1 of the Delhi Airport by taxi and had to incur expenses of Rs.305/- for taxi transfer to Terminal-1 of Delhi Airport; that when she reached Terminal-1 of the Delhi Airport, the boarding of INDIGO Airline (6E-201) flight to Kolkata was closed and she was not allowed to board the Airplane as the boarding of the Airline are generally closed 45 minutes before the time of departure; that ultimately depressed, tired and the child irritated, the complainant again looked for another flight to Kolkata and found seats in another INDIGO Airline(6E-203) departing at 15:30 PM and further incurred Rs.5142/- on booking of two tickets for travel from Delhi to Kolkata and the said flight was after a gap of more than 4 hours and the complainant had to unnecessarily wait on the airport with her son and face harassment at the hands of Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways; that the complainant had to incur extra expenditure of total Rs.17,498/-+ Rs.305/-+Rs.900/= Rs.18,703/- including the tickets of INDIGO Airline, taxi transfer and cost of extra baggage and Rs.13,396/- being the cost of Jet Airways Flight from Delhi to Kolkata which Opposite Parties are liable to reimburse to the complainant alongwith interest; that the complainant had undergone mental torture, harassment, agony due to the negligent acts and deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties. Hence the complaint was filed.
3 After formal admission of the complaint, notice was sent to Opposite Parties. Opposite Party No.1-MakeMy Trip appeared through counsel and filed written reply contesting the complaint on the preliminary objections that the present complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either on merits or as per law and is liable to be out rightly dismissed; that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant on mere conjectures and surmises. It was asserted that the contents of the complaint are wholly misconceived, vexatious, misleading, misrepresented, unsustainable, false, frivolous and are nothing but a fragrant abuse of the process of law and there was no deficiency of service on the part of answering Opposite Party and therefore, no case is made out against the answering Opposite Party under the provisions of the Act and the present complaint is therefore, liable to be dismissed in limine with exemplary costs. It was asserted that as per the jurisdiction clause of Terms and conditions of the User Agreement executed between the User and Opposite Party No.1-MakeMy Trip at the time of booking, this Forum does not have jurisdiction to entertain the present dispute and only the court of NCR Delhi have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the dispute arising out of the bookings; that complaint reveal that there is no allegations against Opposite Party No.1-MakeMy Trip and the complainant has nowhere brought deficiency of service against Opposite Party No.1-MakeMy Trip as the allegations have been leveled only against Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways and Opposite Party No.1-MakeMy Trip has been unnecessarily dragged into this litigation in a bid to harass Opposite Party No.1-MakeMy Trip; that the complainant must prove the loss suffered due to the act or omission of the part of Opposite Party No.1-MakeMy Trip in order to allege and receive monetary compensation; that the flight in question was chosen by the complainant herself out of the various options displayed on the website of Opposite Party No.1-MakeMy Trip and it was a conscious choice of the complainant to choose the particular flight and accordingly Opposite Party No.1-MakeMy Trip issued a confirmed ticket to the complainant and that it is crystal clear that the deficiency alleged by the complainant in her present complaint is wrong, incorrect and in no manner attributable to Opposite Party No.1-MakeMy Trip. On merits, Opposite Party No.1-MakeMy Trip contested the complaint on same pleas as taken in the preliminary objections. All other allegations mentioned in the complaint were denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint against answering Opposite Party with costs.
4. Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways also appeared through counsel and filed written reply contesting the complaint on the ground that there was no deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice on the part of Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways as misconnection of the flight does not amount to deficiency in service or negligence on the part of Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways; that in view of the resolution called “Civil Aviation Requirement” dated 6th August, 2010, passed by Director General of Civil Aviation, Government of India, there was no deficiency in service due to delay in flight alleged in the complaint; that the complainant was provided alternate travel assistance and booked on the next flight 9W 7059 (S2 4282) (Delhi to Kolkata) Standard time of departure- 2055 hours on the same day itself but the complainant did not travel on the said flight and as such, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the answering Opposite Party; that the flight 9W 346 (Amritsar to Delhi) of 7.3.2015 got delayed due to late arrival of the aircraft from Delhi due to connecting 34 passengers from Brussels as flight from Brussels to Delhi got delayed due to technical snag. On merits, it was averred that the complainant booked the tickets through the website of Opposite Party No.1-MakeMy Trip and paid the fare amount to Opposite Party No.1-MakeMy Trip only and not to answering Opposite Party and the complainant’s allegation that she paid Rs.13,396/- to the answering Opposite Party is incorrect; that the allegations of the complainant that when she reached airport on 7th March, 2015 to board the flight for Kolkata, she was informed that the flight PNR No.PCPEIF is delayed by 2 hours and Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways never intimated the delay in flight to the complainant before hand and thus causing her to wait at the airport with her small son causing harassment and inconvenience to the complainant are totally wrong and therefore, these allegations are denied. It was asserted that the flight 9W 346 (Amritsar to Delhi) of 7.3.2015 got delayed due to late arrival of the aircraft from Delhi due to connecting 34 passengers from Brussels as flight from Brussels to Delhi got delayed due to technical snag and as such, the answering Opposite Party is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant as delay was intimated to the complainant on her mobile No.9831147640 at 8:20 PM on 6.3.2015; that it was denied if staff of Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways assured the complainant that the flight from Delhi to Kolkata would leave only after the flight from Amritsar would reach Delhi; that the complainant had misinterpreted the rules of the free baggage allowance because in respect of the check-in-bag, the free baggage allowance is 15 kg per passenger which is to be handed over at the check in counter and the same is loaded in the aircraft hold and as regards the hand bag/ cabin bag, passenger is allowed to carry one piece of hand bag not weighing more than 7 kg and the passenger is to carry the said bag while boarding the aircraft; that the hand bag and check in bag are two different types of baggage and their free baggage allowance can not be combined with each other and as such, the complainant was rightly charged for excess baggage for 3 kg at the rate of Rs.300/- per kg; that there was no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the answering Opposite Party as alleged and therefore, the answering Opposite Party is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant as claimed in the complaint. All other allegations mentioned in the complaint were also denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint against answering Opposite Party.
5 Sufficient opportunities were granted to the parties to lead evidence in order to prove their respective case. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex. C-1, and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C17 and closed her evidence and thereafter ld. counsel for Opposite Party No.1-MakeMy Trip tendered affidavit of Sh.Saurabh Taneja, Deputy Manager Ex.OPW1/1, copy of board resolution dated 4.12.2014 Ex.OPW1/A, copy of terms and conditions Ex.OPW2/B and closed evidence and thereafter, Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Varun Suri, Airport Manager Ex.OP2/1, copy of introduction Ex.OP2/2, copy of terms and conditions ex.Op2/3, copy of message Ex.Op2/4, copy of techlog App Ex.Op2/5, copy of baggage policy Ex.OP2/6, copy of baggage allowance Ex.OP2/7 and closed the evidence. The case was transferred from District Consumer Forum, Amritsar to this Forum vide order dated 21.07.2016 of Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh.
6 We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and documents produced by parties and both the parties have argued their case on the same plea and line as were taken in their pleadings.
7. Ld.counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant was to travel from Amritsar to Kolkata through Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways and the flight was delayed for 2 hours, but the Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways never intimated the delay in the flight to the complainant before hand and thus causing her to wait at the airport with her small son causing harassment and inconvenience to the complainant because due to this delay, the complainant missed her flight from Delhi to Kolkata which was also booked by Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways at the same time and was connecting flight and even boarding pass were also issued at Amritsar for flight from Delhi to Kolkata. He also contended that the complainant repeatedly requested the staff of the Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways at Amritsar Airport to check the schedule as the boarding time of the next flight from Delhi to Kolkata will not be feasible and the flight will not reach in time to catch the connecting flight, but the staff of Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways assured the complainant that when flight reaches Delhi, the connecting flight shall leave thereafter as the boarding passes were issued upto the destination, but when the flight landed at Delhi Airport, the connecting flight from Delhi to Kolkata had already departed by that time and the complainant was left stranded due to the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways. He contended that the complainant requested the staff of Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways to adjust her in some other flight as she had missed her flight due to Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways negligence, but Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. He contended that it was very urgent for the complainant to reach Kolkata as she was to attend her duty and due to this reason, the complainant booked flight on the spot for travel to Kolkata through INDIGO Airlines which was to depart from Terminal-I of Delhi and spent Rs.12,356/- for booking the said tickets with Indigo Airlines. He contended that staff of Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways handed over her baggage late inspite of request and the complainant rushed to Terminal-I of the Delhi Airport by taxi and had to incur an expenses of Rs.305/-. He contended that when complainant reached Terminal-1 of the Delhi Airport, the boarding of INDIGO Airline (6E-201) flight to Kolkata was closed and she was not allowed to board the Airplane as the boarding of the Airline are generally closed 45 minutes before the time of departure and then depressed, tired and the child irritated, the complainant again looked for another flight to Kolkata and found seats in another INDIGO Airline(6E-203) departing at 15:30 PM and further incurred Rs.5152/- on booking of two tickets for travel from Delhi to Kolkata and the said flight was after a gap of more than 4 hours and the complainant had to unnecessarily wait at the airport with her son and face harassment at the hands of Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways. He contended that the complainant had to incur extra expenditure for total of Rs.17,498/-+ Rs.305/-+Rs.900/= Rs.18,703/- including the tickets of INDIGO Airline, taxi transfer and cost of extra baggage and Rs.13,396/- being the cost of Jet Airways Flight from Delhi to Kolkata which Opposite Parties are liable to reimburse to the complainant alongwith interest. He contended that the complainant had undergone mental torture, harassment, agony due to the negligent acts and deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties and as such, the complaint is required to be allowed and Opposite Parties are required to be directed to pay the amount to the complainant as mentioned in the complaint.
8. Ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.1-MakeMy Trip argued on the same lines as mentioned in the written version and contended that present complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be out rightly dismissed. He contended that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant against Opposite Party No.1-MakeMy Trip without any basis. He contended that there is no deficiency of service on the part of answering Opposite Party and therefore, no case is made out against the answering Opposite Party under the provisions of the Act and the present complaint is therefore, liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. It was further asserted that as per the jurisdiction clause of Terms and conditions of the User Agreement between the User and Opposite Party No.1-MakeMy Trip at the time of booking, this Forum does not have jurisdiction to entertain the present dispute and as per the jurisdiction clause of the User Agreement only the court of NCR Delhi have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the dispute arising out of the bookings and bare perusal of the complaint will reveal that there is no allegations regarding deficiency in service against Opposite Party No.1-MakeMy Trip and the allegations have been leveled only against Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways and as such, Opposite Party No.1-MakeMy Trip has been unnecessarily dragged into this litigation in a bid to harass Opposite Party No.1-MakeMy Trip. He contended that the complaint is frivolous against Opposite Party No.1-MakeMy Trip and is liable to be dismissed with cost.
9. Ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways also argued the complaint on the same lines as mentioned in the written version. It is contended that the Director General of Civil Aviation, Government of India, passed the resolution i.e. Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) dated 6th August, 2010 and pointed out that “Facilities to be provided to the passengers by airlines due to denied boarding, cancellation of flights and delays in flights and hence as per the provisions of the said CAR, the cancellation/ rescheduling of the flight does not amount to deficiency in service.” He contended that as per rule 3.5.3 © of the said resolution, the complainant was provided alternate travel assistance and booked on the next flight 9W 7059 (S2 4282) (Delhi to Kolkata) Standard time of departure- 2055 hours on the same day, but the complainant did not travel on the said flight and as such, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the answering Opposite Party. He further contended that as per the aforesaid resolution the delays of the flight does not amount to any deficiency in service on the part of the airline and complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground only. He contended that the flight 9W 346 (Amritsar to Delhi) of 7.3.2015 got delayed due to late arrival of the aircraft from Delhi due to connecting 34 passengers from Brussels as flight from Brussels to Delhi got delayed due to technical snag and as such, the answering Opposite Party is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant and complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground only. He contended that the complainant booked the tickets through Opposite Party No.1-MakeMy Trip and paid Rs.13,396/- to Opposite Party No.1-MakeMy Trip and not to Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways. He contended that the complainant has wrongly alleged that when she reached at Airport on 7.3.2015 for boarding flight, she was informed only at that time that flight is delayed by 2 hours because the complainant was informed before hand through SMS on her mobile on 6.3.2015 at 8.20 PM about delay in flight and as such, there was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways particularly the reason given by Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways in the written reply. He contended that Rs.900/- is rightly charged from the complainant as per rules due to excess weight of luggage and complainant is not entitled to any relief on this count as hand bag and check-in-bag are two different categories of baggage and their free baggage allowance can not be combined with each other. He contended that the complaint is false and is liable to be dismissed with cost.
10. After going through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents produced by the parties, this Forum finds considerable force in the contention of the complainant. Undisputedly, the complainant booked the air tickets from Opposite Party No.1-MakeMy Trip on 21st December, 2014 for travel from Amritsar to Kolkata on 7th March, 2015 on behalf of Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways and Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways booked the tickets of the complainant in two parts i.e. one from Amritsar to Delhi and other from Delhi to Kolkata as is mentioned in E-ticket Ex.C2. It is also an admitted fact between the parties that when the complainant reached airport to take her flight, Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways issued boarding pass to complainant for her flight from Amritsar to Delhi Ex.C3 and Ex.C6 and also from Delhi to Kolkata Ex.C4 and Ex.C5 on e-ticket Ex.C2 which was issued by Opposite Party No.1-MakeMy Trip. This also shows that Opposite Party No.1-MakeMy Trip booked the flight on behalf of Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways because on the basis of e-ticket Ex.C2 which was issued by Opposite Party No.1-MakeMy Trip, Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways issued the boarding passes Ex.C3 to Ex.C6. It also shows that Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways issued the boarding passes Ex.C3 to Ex.C6 for flight from Amritsar to Delhi and Delhi to Kolkata at Amritsar which means the flights were connecting flights. However, the bare perusal of the boarding passes Ex.C3 to Ex.C6 shows negligence and deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways. The E-Ticket Ex.C2 shows that the flight from Amritsar to Delhi was to depart at 05.50 AM and was to arrive at Delhi at 07.05 AM which means the flight takes about one hour and fifteen minutes from Amritsar to Delhi. However, the boarding passes Ex.C3 and Ex.C6 from Amritsar to Delhi shows that the flight was to depart from Amritsar at 08.20 AM. It means it would reach Delhi at about 09.35 AM but Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways issued connecting boarding passes for Delhi to Kolkata Ex.C4 Ex.C5 which shows that the flight was to depart from Delhi at about 08.55 AM which clearly shows that the complainant would miss this flight as complainant would not reach Delhi on the connecting flight before 09.35 AM. Had the boarding passes for Amritsar to Delhi and from Delhi to Kolkata been issued by different airlines then the matter would have been different, but in the case in hand, all the boarding passes were issued by the same Airlines i.e. Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways. In this eventuality, Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways should know that the complainant would miss her flight from Delhi to Kolkata, but even then, Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways issued the boarding passes only to earn illegal profit in the instant case. It amounts to Unfair Trade Practice and deficiency in service. Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways issued all the boarding passes after the dispatch of the alleged SMS intimating the delay in flight and it shows that Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways intentionally issued the boarding passes from Delhi to Kolkata knowing well that the complainant would miss the flight. As such, Unfair Trade Practice and deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways is evident in this case.
11. Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways put forward the reason for delay in flight from Amritsar to Delhi for two hours because the aircraft from Delhi to Amritsar got delayed because this aircraft was to carry 34 passengers who were coming from Brussels and flight from Brussels got delayed due to technical snag as flight were connecting flights. It shows the connecting flight is to wait for the passenger arriving on connecting flight, but the connecting flight Delhi to Kolkata did not wait for complainant, who was also coming to Delhi on connecting flights as all the boarding passes Ex.C3 to Ex.C6 were issued by the same Airlines i.e. Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways. It shows Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways intentionally avoided bigger liability of 34 passengers instead of smaller liability of one passenger i.e. complainant.
12. Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways had also contended that delay in flight is the prerogative of the airlines and passenger can not claim compensation for this reason from airlines as is mentioned in para 05 of the preliminary objections taken by Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways in the written version and referred the resolution of the Director General of Civil Aviation dated 6.8.2010 Ex.OP2/2 proved by Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways. However, clause 1.4 of the said resolution Ex.OP2/2 shows that delay can not be caused by Airlines at “will or pleasure” of the Airlines, but due to an event of extraordinary circumstances beyond the control of the Airlines, the impact of which lead to delay in flight and which could not have been avoided even if reasonable measures had been taken. This clause also gives the instances of events which occurred due to political instability, natural disaster, civil war, insurrection or riot, flood, explosion, government regulation or order affecting the aircraft, strikes and labour disputes causing cessation, slowdown or interruption of work or any other factors that are beyond the control of the airline. However, the delay of flight in the instant case did not happen due to any of these factors, rather the delay in flight in the instant case as per Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways was due to late arrival of the aircraft from Delhi as it waited for 34 passengers who were coming from Brussels and the said aircraft delayed. It means the delay was not due to extraordinary circumstances beyond the control of the airline or which could not have been avoided. Rather Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways intentionally delayed the aircraft at Delhi in order to wait for 34 passengers. It means Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways opted or was ready for smaller liability rather than bigger liability of 34 passengers and in this eventuality, Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways should accept the liability of the complainant, but Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways is contesting the claim of the complainant on flimsy grounds. As such, the complainant has succeeded in proving deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways.
13. The contention of Opposite Party No.1-MakeMy Trip that this Forum got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint, is not tenable because the cause of action occurred at Amritsar as the flight was to depart from Amritsar and delayed at Amritsar due to which reason, the complainant missed her flight from Delhi to Kolkata and as such, District Consumer Forum at Amritsar have the jurisdiction. It is pertinent to mention over here that the instant complaint has been received from District Consumer Forum, Amritsar to this Forum by transfer as per the orders of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh and as such, this Forum has got jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint.
14. So far the quantum of compensation is concerned, the complainant has prayed for the refund of Rs.13,396/- which were spent by the complainant for her and her son travel from Amritsar to Kolkata with Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways; refund of Rs.12,356/- being the cost of tickets for travel from Delhi to Kolkata with INDIGO Airline which the complainant had to purchase as she missed the connecting flight of Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways due to deficiency on their part; refund of Rs.5142/- which the complainant spent as she had to change the flight of INDIGO Airline due to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways as Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways did not hand over the baggage of the complainant when she missed the flight and was to board flight of INDIGO Airline; refund of Rs.900/- which she paid to Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways for excess baggage for her travel from Amritsar to Kolkata; refund of Rs.305/- which she spent on taxi for her travel from Terminal-III to Terminal-I of Delhi Airport; compensation of Rs.4 lacs for harassment and mental agony which the complainant suffered due to deficiency in service and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
15. It is admitted fact that the complainant traveled from Amritsar to Kolkata firstly by Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways from Amritsar to Delhi and then from Delhi to Kolkata by INDIGO Airline flight. As such, the complainant had to incur expenses for this flight either she traveled by Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways or by INDIGO Airline flight. Definitely the cost of ticket, the complainant paid to Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways was less as this flight was booked in advance, whereas the complainant spent more on ticket which she purchased from Delhi to Kolkata through INDIGO Airline. As such, the complainant is not entitled to refund of Rs.13,396/- from Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways as she traveled from Amritsar to Kolkata and had to incur one side fare. Otherwise, the complainant had to incur cost of ticket i.e. Rs.12,356/- from Delhi to Kolkata with INDIGO Airline as she missed the flight of Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways from Delhi to Kolkata due to default on the part of Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways. She is also entitled to recovery Rs.5142/- which she paid for the change of flight time of INDIGO Airline as Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways did not hand over the baggage to the complainant in time and the complainant also missed her said flight of INDIGO Airline. As such, the complainant is entitled to recover Rs.12,356/- + Rs.5142/-. Admittedly, the baggage of the complainant was 3 Kg more than the permissible limit. The check-in-baggage and cabin baggage are two different kinds of baggage and as per rules, a passenger can not combine these baggages and as such, Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways has rightly charged Rs.900/- from the complainant for excess baggage of 3 Kg @ Rs.300/- per Kg as charged by Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways. However, the complainant is entitled to recover Rs.305/- being taxi fare for her travel from Terminal-III to Terminal-I as he had to undertake this journey as she missed her flight due to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways because the flight INDIGO Airlines which was booked for Delhi to Kolkata when the complainant missed her flight of Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways was to depart from Terminal-I, whereas the previous flight was to depart from Terminal-III which she missed. The complainant has claimed Rs.4 lacs on account of harassment and mental agony which she suffered at the airport due to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways, but the complainant has not given detail as to how she calculated compensation of Rs.4 lacs. No medical bill or other receipt has been proved on the file to show that she suffered this loss at the hands of Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways on account of deficiency in service. Otherwise, it is very natural that the complainant must have suffered harassment and mental agony as she missed flight due to deficiency in service and default of Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways and imagine the flight of a lady (complainant) who is all alone with a child having age of 4 years and baggage, who has missed the flight and was left without care at the airport because as per the complainant, the staff of Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways did not help her in arranging any other flight and ultimately, she had to arrange the flight of her own with the help of her husband to whom she contacted telephonically as claimed by the complainant. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, balance of justice would struck between the parties if Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways is burdened with Rs.25,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony to the complainant and the complainant is also awarded Rs.2,000/- as costs of litigation. In this way, the complainant is entitled to recover Rs.12,356/- + Rs.5,142/- +Rs.305/- besides Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as costs of litigation.
16. The complainant has not specifically alleged any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1-MakeMy Trip. Otherwise also, Opposite Party No.1-MakeMy Trip booked the ticket for the complainant and also issued the same for the booked period. As such, the Opposite Party No.1-MakeMy Trip is not liable in the complaint in hand.
17. In light of the above discussion, the complaint succeeds and the same is hereby allowed with cost in favour of the complainant and against Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways and the complainant is held entitled to recover (Rs.12,356/- + Rs.5,142/- +Rs.305/-) i.e. Rs.17,803/- besides Rs.25,000/- on account of compensation. The complainant is also awarded Rs.2,000/- as costs of litigation. Opposite Party No.2-Jet Airways is directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the complainant is entitled to recover interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the awarded amount of Rs.42,803/- from the date of complaint till realisation. The complaint against Opposite Party No.1-MakeMy Trip is dismissed. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties as per the law and the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced in Open Forum
Dated 07.02.2017
