BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSA FORUM
CACHAR :: SILCHAR
Con. Case No. 51 of 2013
Sri Sanjay Sarda, ………………………………………………………… Complainant.
-V/S-
1) Air India Limited,
Club Road, Silchar-1
Dist. Cachar, Assam. ………………………………………………. Opp. Party.
Present: - Sri Bishnu Debnath, President,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Mrs. Chandana Purkayastha, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Shri Kamal Kumar Sarda, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Appeared :- Sri Ajoy Kumar Choudhury, Advocate for the complainant.
Sri Paritosh Dhar, Advocate for the Opp. Party.
Date of Evidence of O.P ………. 16-05-2015
Date of oral argument of O.P…… 07-04-2017
Date of judgment……………… 04-05-2017
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(Sri Bishnu Debnath)
1.The complaint is made U/S 11 & 12 of Consumer Protection Act. 1986 and Rules made thereunder for award of refund of AIR Ticket amount of Rs. 3,552/- (Three Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Two) only along with damages of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) only and cost of the proceeding from Air India Limited.
2.The brief fact of the case Sri Sanjay Sarda S/o Satya Narayan Sarda of Janiganj Bazar, Silchar ,referred as complaint, purchased AIR Ticket for journey from Silchar to Tezpur. The Schedule date of journey was 16-12-2011 at 7.30 AM. The Price of Ticket was RS. 3,552 vide Airline PNR-YZF5W. Accordingly, he went to Kumbhirgram Airport but the flight was cancelled and the Air India Authority made alternative arrangement for the complainant to travel Tezpur via Imphal-Guwahati. The complainant accepted the alternative arrangement and reached to Guwahati at 8.15 PM. As the flight reached lately to Guwahati, so he missed the work at Tezpur. Hence, without proceeding to Tezpur return to Silchar on next day by cancelling journey to Tezpur trip. Thus due to negligence of the Air India Authority he sustained physical hardship and mental agony. Hence, this case has been lost for reliefs as stated above.
3.The Air India Authority, referred as O.P, on receiving notice submitted W/S. In the W/S though admitted the fact that the complainant purchased Ticket for Tezpur and authority made alternative arrangement via Imphal Guwahati, but denied any disservice etc.
4.However, several adjourned dates were given to the complainant to adduce evidence but failed. Ultimately on 20-11-2015 the prayer for further time to submit evidence by the complainant vide Ptn. 1028 was rejected and case proceeded for argument. Of course, the O.P submitted evidence on 16-05-2015. During argument, the complainant remain absent without any step. Record reveals that several adjournment were given for argument, but the complainant did not avail the scope to argue the case. Hence on 07-04-2017, we heard argument of the learned advocate of the O.P.
5.In this case the O.P examined the Station Manager of Air India Limited, Kumbhirgram Airport as D.W-1. His name is Kamei Lungthau. He deposed to support the fact stated in the W/S and also deposed that there was no disservice on the part of the O.P. Whether the O.P cause any disservice to the complainant by making alternative arrangement to travel from Silchar to Tezpur via Imphal-Guwahati is required to prove by the complainant. In view of provision of Section 13/b/2/i of the Consumer Protection Act. it is the burden of the complainant to establish the facts by adducing evidence and if fail to appear on the date of hearing before the District Forum, the District Forum may dismiss the complaint for default or decide it on merit vide Section 13/2/c, of Consumer Protection Act.
6.In the instant case, the complainant did not adduce any evidence. Moreover remain absent during hearing. On the other hand the O.P submitted W/S. In the W/S denied the allegation and by adducing evidence supported the W/S. Hence, in this case when it is revealed from the complaint that the complainant once avail the alternative arrangement and reached to Guwahati he accepted the alternative arrangement voluntary. Otherwise, he could claim total refund of the Ticket price without accepting alternative arrangement. However, the complainant in this complaint stated that he returned to Silchar on the following day for the reasoning that his work at Tezpur missed. But the Forum is in dark to understand what was the work at Tezpur. For which without clearing evidence on record it is not possible to determine as whether the complainant really missed his work at Tezpur and inconsequence, disservice as alleged, can not be determined.
7.Therefore this Forum is of opinion that there is no scope to grant any relief to the complainant. So, this case is dismissed on merit. Supply free certified copy of Judgment to the parties of this litigation. With the above order this case is dismissed on merit.
Given under hand and seal of the District Forum on this the 4th day of May,2017.
