DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT : Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Friday the 18th day of November 2022
C.C. 236/2017
Complainant
Manoj. K. T,
S/o Kunhiraman Nair,
‘Muralika’ Thalapoyil House,
Iyyad P.O, Unnikulam Via,
Kozhikode.
(By Adv. Sri. Sreehari. P.S)
Opposite Parties
- Manager,
Aroodha Holidays,
Fair mount Tower,
Near Kalian Jewellery,
Mavoor Road,
Calicut
(By Adv. Sri. A. V. Anwar)
- Manager,
Go Air Lines (India) Pvt Ltd.,
1st Floor C -1,Wadia,
International Centre, (WIC),
Pandurang, Budhkar, Marg,
Worli, Mumbai, 400 025.
(By Adv. Sri. Shyam Padman)
ORDER
By Sri. V. BALAKRISHNAN - MEMBER
Complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
- The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
The Complainant planned to visit Sikkim with his family and friends and purchased air tickets for the journey from Chennai to Bagdogra by Go Air scheduled on the day 19/04/2017. On 22/02/2017 he paid Rs. 48,600/- to the first opposite party for the tickets. On 17/04/2017 the complainant along with other 8 passengers proceeded to Chennai from Kozhikode by train. While travelling to Chennai the complainant got a text message in his mobile phone from the second opposite party stating the flight G8 – 505 scheduled on 19/04/2017 from Chennai to Bagdogra was cancelled. The team had already arranged all the facilities including hotel accommodation and vehicles at Bagdogra by way of advanced booking. So the massage was so shocking to him and complainant contacted and requested the opposite parties to make alternative arrangements for the journey by any other air service, in order to avoid the huge losses. But the opposite parties were not ready to make any other arrangements. Finally complainant and his team made the arrangements themselves to continue their journey by Indigo Airlines from Chennai to Kolkata and thereafter to reach Bagdogra by taxi from Kolkata. The complainant was forced to pay Rs. 65, 800/- for the journey from Channai to Kolkata and Rs. 24,000/- for the taxi fare from Kolkatta to Bagdogra.
3. The inconvenience and difficulties to the complainant and his grievance in the said incident was only due to the negligence in the service of the opposite parties. If any unexpected situation for the cancellation of the ticket was there the opposite parties should have made some other arrangements for the journey.
4. Hence the prayer of the complainant is to give direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs. 17,200/- to the complainant, the excess amount of the flight and Rs. 24,000/- spent for the taxi charges from Kolkata to Bagdogra. In addition to that he wants to issue direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant as the compensation for the inconvenience , deficiency in service and for mental agony suffered. He also demands cost of the proceedings.
5. The first opposite party was set ex-parte.
6. The second opposite party filed the version. Almost all the averments allegations and statements made in the complaint were denied by second opposite party. They submitted that there is no cause of action for the complainant and it was not within the territorial jurisdiction of the Commission. They also submitted that e-ticket was booked by the complainant through the first opposite party and the consideration was paid to them and not to the second opposite party. The complainant was also informed about the cancellation of Flight on 17/04/2017 and there was no necessity for them to travel to Chennai.
7. The contentions in the version in a nutshell is that the cancellation of flight by the airlines was on account of various unavoidable reasons beyond their control and they are only liable to refund the ticket fare. The cancellation was also informed well before 24 hours prior to departure of the flight.
8. The points that arise for determination in this case are:
(1) The Commission have jurisdiction on the cause of action of this case?
(2) Whether there was any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
(3) Reliefs and costs.
9. Evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Ext A1 and A2.
- Heard. 11.Point No.1. The second opposite party has taken a contention that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The office of the first opposite party is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. The complainant purchased the ticket from the first opposite party and the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Commission. So this Commission has ample jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the complaint is perfectly maintainable 12.Point No.2. The complainant was examined as PW1, who filed proof affidavit in support of the claim. Ext A1 is the confirmed ticket of Indigo Air from Chennai to Kolkata and Ext A2 is the confirmed Flight ticket of Go Air from Chennai to Bagdogra. From Ext A2 it is clear that ticket for Chennai to Bagdogra was issued from the first opposite party for the flight scheduled on 19 April 2017 for the nine passengers. It is also an undisputed fact that the said flight G8 505 was cancelled. Ext A1 shows the complainant had re-scheduled the tour program of his team from Chennai to Kolkata by air and thereafter Kolkata to Bagdogra by road as the earlier booked flight was cancelled. 13. When the passenger pays for ticket and confirmed ticket is issued the air-line becomes responsible for the transportation of the passenger and his baggage. This is covered by both statutes and international conventions. So if the confirmed flight ticket is issued, it is the duty of the airline to see that the journey is performed as scheduled. It is also an admitted fact that the text message of cancellation of the flight was informed on 17/04/2017. The complainant and his team proceeded on 17/04/2017 from Calicut to Chennai by train as the scheduled flight was on 19/04/2017 11 am. Generally for the tour programs in vacation, arrangements for accommodation and travel in the destination area are to be done well in advance. So we find anything to dis-believe the statement of the complainant that he had incurred advance payments for their vacation programs. From Ext A2 it is clear the complainant had planned the trip from Chennai to Bagdogra by air. After the cancellation of the flight they could reach only up to Kolkata by air in short time of booking. It is evident from Ext A1.
14. The passenger Charter Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India clearly mention the rights of passengers. As per Flight cancellation –Scenario-1-of the charter, when the passengers are informed of flight cancellation less than 2 weeks before but, up to 24 hours of the scheduled departure time the Air-line must offer an alternate flight allowing to depart or refund the ticket, as acceptable by the passengers. In this case, the opposite party No.2 had shown their helplessness to perform as per the passenger charter of ministry of Civil aviation, Government of India. The complainant stated that eventhough they requested for alternate flight tickets from opposite parties there was no positive response from their sides. Hence there is deficiency in service from the side of the opposite parties. We find that the main reason for the inconvenience, hardship and financial loss occurred to complainant were due to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of second opposite party. So the complainant has to be sufficiently compensated for their sufferings.
15. It is an undisputed fact the complainant and his team had booked
flight tickets of the second opposite party from Chennai to Bagdogra which was later cancelled. The complainant and his team rescheduled their tour program in another flight from Chennai to Kolkata and from Kolkata to Bagdogra by road. The re-arrangement of the program caused much inconvenience and financial loss to the complainant and his team. Additional amount was spent for air tickets and taxi fare. The main reason for the inconvenience hardship and financial loss occurred to the complainant was due to the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the second opposite party. The second opposite party had shown their helplessness to perform as per the passenger charter Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India. So the complainant has to be sufficiently compensated for their sufferings and financial loss. We find that Rs. 30,000/- will be reasonable compensation on this count.
16. Point No 2. In the light of the finding on the above points, the complaint is disposed of as follows:
(a) CC No. 236/2017 is allowed in part.
- The second opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) as compensation to the complainant.
- The second opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) to the complainant as cost of proceedings.
- The payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, otherwise Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) will bear 6% interest from the date of order till actual payment.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, 18th day of November, 2022.
Date of Filing:28/06/ 2017
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext. A1 – Confirmed ticket of Indigo Air from Chennai to Kolkata.
Ext. A2 – Confirmed Flight ticket of Go Air from Chennai to Bagdogra.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Nil.
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 – Manoj. K. T (Complainant)
Witnesses for the opposite parties
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Forwarded/ By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
