BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complt. Case No  :1141 of 2009

Date of Institution :   12.08.2009

Date of  Decision  :   28.05.2010

1]          Nupur K. Nadda w/o Dr.J.B.Nadda, R/o H.No.1166, Sector 7, Panchkula.

2]          Dr.J.B.Nadda s/o Sh.N.L.Nadda, R/o H.No.1166, Sector 7, Panchkula.

 ……Complainants

V E R S U S

1]       MDLR Airlines Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.10-12, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through its Station Manager/Incharge.

2]          Mehar Tours & Travels, SCO 212, Top Floor, Sector 24-D, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

 .…..Opposite Parties

3]          Spicejet Ltd., 319 Udyog vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon, Haryana, through its Chairman

 …Proforma Opposite Party

CORAM:          SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA                         PRESIDENT

                    MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                        MEMBER

PRESENT:          Sh.Navin Kapur, Adv. for the complainant.

                    Sh.G.S.Ahluwalia, Adv. for OP No.2.

                    Sh.C.D.Jindal, Adv. for OP No.1.

                    OP No.3 already exparte.  

PER MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

                This complaint has been filed by Sh.Nupur K. Nadda and Dr.J.B.Nadda, complainants under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act praying that the OPs be directed to pay the excess amount spend in buying fresh air tickets as well as compensation for harassment caused due to delay in flight.

1]             The complainants had booked two confirmed air tickets of OP No.1 through OP No.2 for travel from Chandigarh to New Delhi.  The flight was scheduled to take off at 7.30 A.M. and land in Delhi at 8.10 A.M. on 13.1.2009.   The cost of tickets was Rs.2875/- each.  Unfortunately when the complainants reached the Airport, they were informed that the flight has been cancelled. The person at the counter informed them that they would however be adjusted on the next flight, which was proposed to take off at 9.30 A.M. on the same day.  The complainants were already booked for a connecting flight from Delhi to Hyderabad, which was scheduled to depart at 2.00 P.M. on the same day.  They could do nothing but wait at the airport.   

                The complainants were put in a further mess when the flight at 9.30 A.M. also never took off and they were finally put on a flight which left Chandigarh at 3.00 P.M.

                Since the complainants were to be  joined at Hyderabad by their two daughters,  they became very insecure about their children due to this delay.

                It is pertinent to mention here that right from 6.30 A.M. to 3.00 P.M., the complainants had to sit at the airport and had to incur additional expenditure on purchase of eatables etc. No care was taken of them by the airport/airline staff.

                As the flight from Chandigarh took off at 3.00 P.M., the complainants also missed their connecting flight from Delhi to Hyderabad of Indigo Airlines.  So they had to purchase fresh tickets of Spicejet for their onward journey to Hyderabad.  When they later applied for a refund from Indigo Airlines, they had to not only forego an amount of Rs.3000/- with the Indigo Airlines, but also had to spend Rs.2400/- more on purchase of new tickets of Spicejet.  The complainants also lodged their grievance with OP No.1 as per Ann.P-5 but no steps were taken by OP No.1 to redress their complaint. The complainants have thus filed the present complaint seeking compensation from the OPs for the money loss on the purchase/cancellation of tickets as well as for harassment caused due to deficiency in service.

2]             In the course of proceedings, OPs No.1 & 2 were duly served while OP No.3 was proceeded exparte on 24th Sept., 2009.

3]             The OP No.1 in their reply have submitted that on 13.1.2009 the flight was not cancelled, rather the flight was delayed due to fog/non-visibility and had taken off at 2.20 P.M. after A.T.C. gave permission to take off the flight.  Hence, the flight delayed was not due to the negligence of OP No.1 but because A.T.C. did not give permission to take off the flight due to poor-visibility.  No flight of any airlines can take off without permission from A.T.C.  They have stated that theirs was the first flight which took off that day.  Further they have submitted that the tickets for the flight were booked through OP No.2 by Credit Card and refund, if any, could be made only in the account of credit card as per company’s policy to which the complainant were not agreeable. The complainants along with all other passengers were provided full comfort along with refreshment during their period of waiting.  Any inconvenience caused to the complainants was not due to any fault on their part. They have thus prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 

4]             OP No.2 in their reply have stated that they are merely air ticket agents and had sold the tickets to the complainant on behalf of OP No.1.  After the sale of tickets, OP No.2 has nothing to do with the flight schedule.

                Infact when the complainants informed them about the delay of flight of OP No.1 and requested them to issue fresh tickets of another airlines, the OP No.2 accordingly issued tickets of Spicejet to the complainant from Delhi to Hyderabad without any immediate payment.  The complainant made payment for the tickets only on his return from the trip.  With regard to the unutilized tickets from Delhi to Hyderabad, the amount received after deduction of cancellation amount had been kept in the credit of the customer to be utilized in future travel by the passenger on indigo Airlines (Ann.R-2/1).  The complainants had been informed about this credit schedule.  It is pertinent to mention here that the complainants have already availed the said credit schedule for purchase of new air ticket for their daughter.

                Claiming that there was no deficiency on their part since they were only agents and had no role in delay of the flight, they have prayed for dismissal of the complaint against them.  

5]             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence led by the parties in support of their contentions, OP No.3 already exparte.

6]             It is commonly known that January is a month of fog and bad weather; and delays/rescheduling of flights are common and are even flashed in all newspapers and television bulletins in those days.  The OP No.1 in their reply have submitted that delay in taking off the flight, which is the main cause of this complaint, was not due to any fault of theirs but due to fog/non-visibility and non-receipt of clearance from A.T.C. to take off the flight.  No flight can be allowed to take off without ATC granting permission.  It needs to be mentioned here that the flight was never cancelled and it did take off at 2.20. P.M. on the same day.  Neither the complainant, nor the OP’s have mentioned whether the complainants went to New Delhi by flight of the OP airlines or another airlines.  

7]             In view of the above, we cannot hold either of the OPs responsible for any distress caused to the complainant especially since weather changes and A.T.C. permission are not in their hands.  Even if the flight was ready with all passengers on board, it could not take off without clearance from A.T.C. The unavoidable inconvenience was caused to all the passengers and not just the complainant. 

8]             The complaint is therefore dismissed.  Parties are left to bear their own costs.

9]             Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

28.05.2010                                                         Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

                                                 Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

‘Om’