Case No.CC/310/2015

         Date of Institution:-16.07.2015

          Order Reserved on :-04.04.2024

           Date of Order :-16.05.2024      

IN THE MATTER OF:

NalinTripathi

S/o Shri Rama NandTripathi,

R/o 22-D, Pocket-C, Siddhartha Extension,

New Delhi – 110014.

          …..Complainant

VERSUS

1. Mr. Ankur, Manager,

M/s. Spice Jet Airlines,

Having his office at:

Terminal 1D,

Indira Gandhi International Airport,

New Delhi.

2. M/s. Spice Jet Airlines,

Through its Managing Director,

Having its office at:

319, UdyogVihar, Phase-IV,

Gurgaon (Haryana).

..…Opposite Parties

O R D E R

Per R. C. YADAV , MEMBER

1. The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Opposite Parties (in short OP) alleging deficiency of service.  Brief facts of the case are that the complainanthas booked 02 tickets on 18.09.2014 for travel on 13.05.2015 and return on 16.03.2015 and paid Rs.11,332/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty Two).  Copy of the tickets is annexed as Annexure C-1. On 13.03.2015, son of the complainant was not well but since the ticket issued by the OP was not refundable and the son of complainant was more anxious for air travel, the complainant decided to travel and hence reached terminal 1-D of Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi and reported to the counter of the OP for issuance of boarding pass.  The complainant has realized that the boarding pass instead of he and his son being assigned seats together, the seats assigned to the complainant and his minor son were far from each other and the son of the complainant was uncomfortable in sitting away from the complainant, the complainant has requested to issue his seat equal by his son but the OP gave deaf year to the complainant.   The complainant has requested for refund of his money with interest but Mr. Ankur claiming himself to be the Manager, started abusing and insulted the complainant.  The OP has booked two tickets on one PNR in single ticket. The OP was under obligation to provide adjacent seat to both the passengers.  As per the principle of promissory estopple, the respondents ought to be estopped from demanding extra price for 2 adjacent seats.The complainant had a contractual obligation and had paid price for convenient travel, but his request to provide adjacent seats was declined, ignoring the fact that the co-passenger with the complainant was none else thana minor especially when there were ample seat where were not occupied and remained vacant throughout the travel. The complainant has stated that any act/deed, which a service provider is normally expected to perform, but fails to deliver, is nothing short of deficiency in service and hence OP is liable to compensate the complainant for the claims made by him in the complaint.  The minor son of complainant was forced to travel alone and as such he suffered a setback and his condition deteriorated on reaching Mumbai, as such the entire programme of the complaint and his son was disturbed, as they could not enjoy the trip and the money invested was wasted.   The complainant has submitted that the practice of blocking seats under the nomenclature SMAX is nothing but monopolistic and restrictive trade practice but the OP in order to promote their monopolistic/restrictive trade practice are harassing the consumers on one pretext or the other. As per the terms and conditions of travel as detailed on the website of the OP, Exhibit C-4, it iscategorically mentioned in under the heading “Premium Seats” “If you do not wish to pre-book, your seat will be assigned at the time of check-in without any charges (as per the availability)” so when the seats were available in the flight, the complainant was entitled to the seats together, specially when the complainant and his son were travelling on a single ticket.  The complainant has prayed for direction to the OP to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.35,000/- towards litigation charges.
2. Notice of complaint was served to OP. The OP has filed reply and taking several preliminary objections that after booking of tickets, the passengers have an option to web check in and at that point of time, they can choose the seats as per their choice, which is chargeable.  In case the passenger does not book the seat through web check in, then the seats are allotted as per availability. These terms and conditions have been mentioned in the terms of travel, which is a binding contract between the parties.  The OP has stated that normally adjacent seats are provided to the passengers, who travel by one PNR or on one ticket, however, in exceptional circumstances i.e. if the passengers reach late or if the adjacent seats are no available, then the staff has no option, but to allot two different seats to the passengers, even if they are travelling on one PNR or on one ticket. In the present case, the complainant with his son were travelling on one PNR and they reached late at the boarding counter and by that time two adjacent seats were not available. The OP has stated that two adjacent seats were available under the SMAX seats only and the complainant was informed that he can have two adjacent seats in the said category, upon making extra payment of Rs.1,000/- (for both the seats) to which the complainant refused.  The staff of OP had no option but to provide two different seats to the complainant and co-passenger.  It is submitted that the complainant could have requested to any solo passenger to accommodate his son for change of the seats. It is submitted that the flight in question was almost full, barring a few seats under the SMAX category and hence there is no deficiency in service on part of the OP and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  The OP has stated that OP undertakes safe and on time air journey, enabling the passengers to reach from one destination to another. In the present case, admittedly, the complainant and the co-passenger have reached their destination without any hassle and hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. There is no contractual or legal obligation upon the OP to provide two seats to two co-passengers.  Seats are provided to the passengers on the basis of first come first serve. While booking of the tickets, it was not promised by the staff of OP to the complainant that they would provide adjacent seats to him and the fellow passenger.  The complainant was given option to have two adjacent seats in the category of SMAX, upon extra payment, which was refused. Hence, the present complaint is misconceived and frivolous and liable to be dismissed.
3. In response to the written statement, the complainant has filed rejoinder reiterating the allegations made in the complaint and denying the allegations leveled in the written statement.
4. Both the parties have filed affidavit of evidence as well as written arguments in support of their respective case.
5. On 04.04.2024, the case was listed for arguments,we have heard arguments from Sh. Ankur Jain,  Manager/AR of OP-1 & OP-2. The complainant was directed to address oral arguments within next 15 days and thecase was reserved for order.
6. We have carefully considered the material on record and thoroughly perused the documents placed on record by the complainant.
7. It is acase of the complainant that hehadbooked 02 tickets on 18.09.2014 for travel on 13.05.2015 and return on 16.03.2015 and paid Rs.11,332/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty Two).  Copy of the tickets is annexed as Annexure C-1. On 13.03.2015, son of the complainant was not well but since the ticket issued by the OP was not refundable and the son of complainant was more anxious for air travel, the complainant decided to travel and hence reached terminal 1-D of Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi and reported to the counter of the OP for issuance of boarding pass.  The complainant has realized that the boarding pass instead of he and his son being assigned seats together, the seats assigned to the complainant and his minor son were far from each other and the son of the complainant was uncomfortable in sitting away from the complainant, the complainant has requested to issue his seat equal by his son but the OP gave deaf year to the complainant.   The complainant has requested for refund of his money with interest but Mr. Ankur claiming himself to be the Manager, started abusing and insulted the complainant.  The OP has booked two tickets on one PNR in single ticket. The OP was under obligation to provide adjacent seat to both the passengers.  As per the principle of promissory estopple, the respondents ought to be estopped from demanding extra price for 2 adjacent seats.  The complainant had a contractual obligation and had paid price for convenient travel, but his request to provide adjacent seats was declined, ignoring the fact that the co-passenger with the complainant was none else than a minor especially when there were ample seat where were not occupied and remained vacant throughout the travel. The complainant has stated that any act/deed, which a service provider is normally expected to perform, but fails to deliver, is nothing short of deficiency in service and hence OP is liable to compensate the complainant for the claims made by him in the complaint.  The minor son of complainant was forced to travel alone and as such he suffered a setback and his condition deteriorated on reaching Mumbai, as such the entire programme of the complaint and his son was disturbed, as they could not enjoy the trip and the money invested was wasted.   The complainant has submitted that the practice of blocking seats under the nomenclature SMAX is nothing but monopolistic and restrictive trade practice but the OP in order to promote their monopolistic/restrictive trade practice are harassing the consumers on one pretext or the other.  As per the terms and conditions of travel as detailed on the website of the OP, Exhibit C-4, it is categorically mentioned in under the heading “Premium Seats” “If you do not wish to pre-book, your seat will be assigned at the time of check-in without any charges (as per the availability)” so when the seats were available in the flight, the complainant was entitled to the seats together, specially when the complainant and his son were travelling on a single ticket.
8. The complainant has paid consideration amount Rs.11,332/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Two) to the OP  for travelling from Delhi to Mumbai.  The complainant and his son have reached at the destination place safely and on time.  There is no terms and conditions in which OP is under obligation to provide two adjacent seats in the aircraft as the seats are allotted on “first come first serve” basis. The complainant was offered seats under SMAX category upon the extra payment, which was refused by the complainant. The complainant has not placed evidence which show that the seats in the aircraft were vacant without SMAX category.   Under these circumstances, there is no deficiency in service on part of the OP. Hence, the complaint is dismissed with no cost.

• Copy of the order be given/sent to the parties as per rule.
• The file be consigned to Record Room.
• Announce in the open Court on 16.05.2024.