BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.
Complaint No: 547 of 08.08.2014
Date of Decision: 18.03.2015
1. Satpal Puri s/o Sh.Piare Lal Puri,
2. Neelam Rani w/o Sh.Satpal Puri,
Both residents of 42, Street no.4, Santokh Nagar, New Shivpuri, Ludhiana.
……Complainants
Versus
1. M/s Jetlite India Limited, Siroya Centre, Sahara Airport Road, Andheri East, Mumbai, through its Managing Director/Director/Authorized Signatory.
2. National Insurance Company having its registered office 3, Middleton Street, Kolkata, through its Chairman/Authorized Signatory.
3. National Insurance Company, SCO No.124, 3rd Floor, 3 Cabin, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana, through its Chairman/Authorized Signatory.
4. Shine Tours and Travels, Opp. Bengali Streets, adjoining D.K. Showroom, Ghumar Mandi, Ludhiana, through Partner/Proprietor/Authorized Signatory.
…..Opposite parties
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Quorum: Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member
Smt.Babita, Member
Present: Sh.Sachin Seth, Advocate for complainant.
Sh.J.S.Bindra, Advocate for OP1.
Sh.M.S.Jassal, Advocate for OP2 and OP3.
Sh.Jaswinder Singh Jhuner, Advocate for OP4.
ORDER
(SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER)
1. Present complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed by Sh.Satpal Puri s/o Sh.Piare Lal Puri and Smt.Neelam Rani w/o Sh.Satpal Puri, both residents of 42, Street no.4, Santokh Nagar, New Shivpuri, Ludhiana (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘complainants’) against M/s Jetlite India Limited, Siroya Centre, Sahara Airport Road, Andheri East, Mumbai, through its Managing Director/Director/Authorized Signatory and others (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘OPs’)- directing them to accept the claim of the complainant and OP1 be directed to pay compensation of Rs.1.00 lac on account of deficiency in service, harassment, mental tension pain and agony and OP2 be directed to settle the claim of the complainants and to pay Rs.3412/- for cancellation charges by Spice Jet and Rs.936/- for cancellation of bus service. Further Ops be directed to pay Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainants alongwith any other additional or alternative relief.
2. Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainants got booked the air tickets on 31.12.13 for their visit to Dawarka Dhish for 1.2.14, which was scheduled as Chandigarh to Delhi Departure time 5.15 pm arrival time 6.35 pm, 2nd connecting flight from Delhi to Ahmadabad, departure time 7.05 pm and arrival time 8.40 pm. The tickets were confirmed with OP1 for flight JT Konnect S23652 from Chandigarh to Delhi and Jet Konnect S24392 from Delhi to Ahmedabad total amounting to Rs.9208/-, thereafter the complainants from Ahmadabad to Dwarka Dhish got booked the tickets for Journey on 1.2.14 amounting to Rs.1000/-. Further the complainants booked their return tickets from Ahmadabad to Mumbai and Mumbai to Chandigarh with Spice Jet from OP4 total amounting to Rs.13,556/-. Complainants further in order to safe their Journey the complainants also got insured themselves with OP2 and OP3, vide insurance policy no.251100/48/13/0570000001. When on 01.02.14, when the complainants reached at Chandigarh Airport, they were surprised to know that flight of OP1 has been cancelled without giving any prior intimation to the complainants. Due to non-visit of the complainant Spice Jet deducted Rs.3412/- for cancellation of their flight and Rs.936/- were also charged for cancellation by the bus service due to the same reason. Complainants also served a legal notice upon the OPs on 5.3.14, vide registered post, through their counsel. The Ops have received the notice, but failed to do the needful. Instead to taking into consideration to the genuine request of the complainants and their claims, the OP1 sent a false frivolous reply to the complainants. Claiming the above act as deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed this complaint.
3. On notice of the complaint, OP1 appeared through his counsel and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is frivolous, baseless and false; no cause of action arose at Ludhiana in any manner whatsoever. Further submitted that S-2 3652 also operates in Code Share with Jet Airways (India) Ltd as Flight no.9W 2652. It is submitted that flight no.S-2 3652 may also be read as 9W 2652 as the case may be hereinafter as both flights are one and the same flight which is manifested from the e-mail dated 25.3.14 written by Mr.Ajit Jha, APM Chandigarh Jet Airways (India) Ltd. while providing reasons of cancellation of the said flight; this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this matter. in tickets under the heading ‘Excerpts’ shows that OPs had a right to cancel, advance, reschedule, overfly etc. without assigning any reason to the passengers; the conditions of carriage, which is printed on the jacket of the ticket is a contract between the passenger and the airline company, which is a valid contract as per the International Air Transportation Association (IATA) rules. Further submitted that flight of complainant was booked in flight no.S-23652 scheduled to depart from Chandigarh to Delhi on 1.2.14. The said flight was cancelled due to poor visibility (Fog) at Chandigarh Airport. Not only the said flight, but all other airlines were also cancelled due to the prevailing bad weather at Chandigarh Airport. The staff of the answering OP at Chandigarh Airport had given option of the next day flight (subject to the weather condition), but the same was refused by him. Therefore full refund was processed to the complainant immediately, which was accepted by him without any demur. Now after receiving full refund, complainant is trying to extract further amount from the company. Further relying on the citation Indian Airlines Ltd. Vs Dr.V.J. Philip reported in 1997 (2) CPJ 32 (NC) submitted that the bad weather conditions, which were beyond the control of the answering OP cannot be subject matter of deficiency in service. Further submitted that as per rules issued Directorate General of Civil Aviation, Govt. of India in its notification effective from 15.8.10 under CAR section 3 – Air transport Series ‘M’ Part IV, Issue I, dated 6.8.10,
Introduction
1.2…………..
1.3………….
1.4………….
1.5 Additionally, airlines would also not liable to pay any compensation in respect of cancellation and delays clearly attributable to Air Traffic Control (ATC) meteorological conditions, security risks, or any other causes that are beyond the control of airlines but which affect their ability to operate flights on schedule.
3.3 Cancellation of flight
3.3.4 No such compensation shall be payable to any of the affected passengers in the event:
ii) The cancellation occur due to extraordinary circumstances beyond the control of the airline (as described in para 1.4 and para 1.5) even if all reasonable measures had been taken by airline.
On merits, reiterating the facts mentioned in the preliminary objections and denying all other allegations of the complaint, OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. On notice of the complaint, OP2 and OP3 appeared through their counsel and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; the present complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. On merits, para no.1 for the complaint is denied. Against para no.2, it is submitted that as per insurance policies filed by the complainants with their complaint, the complainants have taken these insurance policies from National Insurance Company Ltd. Corporate Regional Office 2nd Floor, Royal Insurance Building, 14 J, Tata Road, Churchgate Mumbai. The complainants have neither lodged the claim under the above said policies not they served the legal notice to this office. So, the complaint is not maintainable. Against the para no.3 of the complaint, it is submitted that this para of the complaint relates to OP1 M/s Jetlite India Ltd. As per reply of the OP1, the flight of the complaints scheduled to depart from Chandigarh to Delhi on 01.02.14 was cancelled due to poor visibility (Fog) at Chandigarh Airport. All the flights which was scheduled to operate from Chandigarh were also cancelled due to bad weather at Chandigarh Airport. When the complainants reached at the Airport, the said cancellation of the flight was informed to the complainants immediately by the employee of the OP1. The staff of the OP at Chandigarh Airport gave the complainants the option of the next day flight (subject to the weather condition) but the same was refused by the complainants and the full refund had been processed to the complainants immediately by the OP1, which has since been accepted by the complainants. The full refund has been received and accepted by the complainants from the OP1. The cancellation of flight was due to bad weather condition beyond the control of the airlines and the same by any stretch of imagination cannot be treated as deficiency in services. Denying the contents of all other paras of the complaint, OP2 and OP3 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. On notice of the complaint, OP4 appeared through his counsel and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable against the answering OP; the present complaint is bad for misjoinder of parties. The answering OP has no concern or connection with the dispute of the complainants with the OP1 to OP3; there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP. On merits, submitted that answering OP is not the agent of the OP1. The answering OP never approached to the complainants nor represented them as an agent of OPs. The answering OP is only running Tour and Travel agency at Shine Tours & Travels, opposite Bengali Streets, adjoining D.K. Showroom, Ghumar Mandi, Ludhiana and the complainants visited to the office of the answering OPs and asked for booking the tickets, the answering OP has booked their tickets online (through net) only and the complainants also asked for the travel insurance and the complainant has purchased the insurance policy of OP2 and OP3, through the answering OP. No any such assurance ever given or taken at that time. As such, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed against the answering OP. The answering OP has wrongly made party in the present complaint. Further denying contents of all other paras answering OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. Ld. Counsel for complainant has adduced the evidence by way of duly sworn affidavit of complainant no.1 Sh.Satpal Puri Ex.CA and affidavit of Smt.Neelam Puri complainant no.2 Ex.CB, wherein the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the complaint and also attached documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for OP1 has adduced the evidence by way of duly sworn affidavit of Sh.Zakir Husain s/o Sh.K.Khan, aged about 38 years, Occupation, Service, O/address –Jet Lite (India) Ltd., 5th Floor, Jetair House, 13, Community Centre, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi Ex.RA, wherein, the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the written statement and also attached documents Ex.JL/1 to Ex.JL/4. Whereas, Ld. Counsel for OP2 and OP3 has adduced the evidence by way of duly sworn affidavit of Sh.Sanjeev Khurana, Assistant Manager, D.O. no.1, National Insurance Company Ltd. Link Road, near Atam Park, Ludhiana Ex.RA2, wherein the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the written statement of OP2 and OP3. Ld. Counsel for OP4 has adduced the evidence by way of duly sworn affidavit of Sh.Deepak Kumar, Partner of M/s Shine Tours and Travels, Opp. Bengali Streets, adjoining D.K. Showroom, Ghumar Mandi, Ludhiana Ex.RA4, wherein the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the written statement of OP4.
7. Case was fixed for arguments. Ld. Counsel for complainant filed written arguments, whereby reiterating the facts mentioned in the written statement submitted that OPs have filed false and frivolous replies by taking wrong, incorrect and vague pleas, which have no bearing on the rights of the complainants. The citations mentioned in the written statement by the OP1 are not applicable in the present complaint. It is settled law that no party can escape from its liabilities by taking false, frivolous, incorrect and vague pleas. OP2 and OP3 also filed false and frivolous written statement, which also have not bearing on the rights of the complainant. The written statements filed by the OP1 and OP2 & OP3 are contradictory to each other. Further denying the contents of written statement filed by OP1, OP2 & OP3 complainant prayed that complaint may kindly be allowed with costs. Ld. Counsel for complainant also relied upon the judgements passed in cases titled as Ethopian Airlines Vs Naveen Singh Grewal- 2009(4) CLT 149 (NC), Indian Airlines Vs Femina Zai- 2007(3) CLT 506 (NC), Indian Airlines Ltd. and another Vs V.S.Singh and another- 2006(3) CLT 663.
8. Ld. counsel for OP1 has filed written arguments, wherein, the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the written statement. Ld. counsel for OP1 also relied upon the judgements passed in cases titled as InterGlobe Aviation Ltd. Vs N.Satchindanand passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil appeal no.4925 of 2011, Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Company Ltd. passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal no.1560 of 2004, Indian Air Lines Ltd. Vs Dr.V.J.Philip- 1986-99 4149 (NS) passed by Hon’ble National Commission.
9. Ld. counsel for OP2 and OP3 argued orally that the flight was cancelled due to bad weather and was the act of God. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP2 and OP3. Further argued that complainants had taken the insurance policies from National Insurance Company Ltd. at Mumbai. The complainants have neither lodged the claim under the above said policies nor they served legal notice to this office, where the policies were taken by the complainants.
10. Ld. counsel for OP4 argued that OP4 is not the agent of OP1 and they have no concern or connection with the dispute of the complainants with the OP1 to OP3. OP4 only booked the tickets of the complainants, through net on their requests and as per their asking and no relief has been sought by the complainants against the OP4. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP4.
11. We have gone through the pleadings of the complainant as well as defence taken by the OPs and gone through the written arguments submitted on behalf of complainant as well as written arguments submitted by Ld. counsel for OP1 and have also perused the entire record placed on file.
12. It is evident that complainants booked flights scheduled as Chandigarh to Delhi, connecting flight from Delhi to Ahmedabad and back from Ahmedabad to Mumbai and Mumbai to Chandigarh. But the flight of OP1 was stated to be cancelled due to bad weather. Further it is averred by OP1 that full refund was processed to the complainant, which was accepted by him without any demur or after receiving full refund, complainant is trying to extract further amount from the company. But as the complainant has alleged that due to non-visit of the complainant Spice Jet deducted Rs.3412/- for cancellation of their flight and Rs.936/- were also charged for cancellation by the bus service due to the same reason. Complainants also served a legal notice upon the OPs on 5.3.14, vide registered post, through their counsel. The Ops have received the notice, but failed to do the needful. Instead to taking into consideration to the genuine request of the complainants and their claims, the OP1 sent a false frivolous reply to the complainants. So, it was incumbent on the part of the OP1 to inform the complainant at due time or at least 3 hours from the departure of the flight. But the OP1 has failed to prove that there was such intimation forwarded by them to the complainant. As such, they are found to be deficient services.
13. Sequel to the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and OP1 is directed to pay the cancellation charges of the flight as well as of the bus. Further OP2 and OP3 also directed to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant on account of misconnection as per terms and conditions of the policy. Further OP1 is directed to pay Rs.5000/-(Five thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses compositely assessed to the complainant. There is no liability of OP4. As such, complaint against OP4 stand dismissed. Order be complied within 30 days of receipt of the copy of the order, which be made available to the parties, free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
(Babita) (S.P.Garg)
Member Member
Announced in Open Forum.
Dated:18.03.2015
Hardeep Singh
