STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

(In Appeal No.113 of 2010)

                                                                   Date of Institution:16.03.2010

                                                                   Date of Decision  :04.03.2011

M/s Spicejet Ltd., 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase IV, Gurgaon, Haryana.

……Appellant.

V e r s u s

1.     Ms. Prapti Mittal D/o Smt. Asha Mittal R/o A-204, GHS-30, Sector 20, Panchkula.

2.     Yatra.com, SCO-16-17, Sector 9D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

              ....Respondents.

BEFORE:            MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDING MEMBER.

                        S.  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by:            Sh. R. K. Singla, Advocate for the appellant.

                    Ms. Anuradha Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1.

                    None for responent No.2.

(Appeal No.152 of 2010)

                                                                   Date of Institution:05.04.2010

                                                                   Date of Decision  :04.03.2011

Ms. Prapti Mittal D/o Smt. Asha Mittal R/o A-204, GHS-30, Sector 20, Panchkula (presently residing at URS-1333, Broadway Suite No.8 Oakland California, USA) through Smt. Asha Mittal, Authorised Representative of complainant.

……Appellant.

V e r s u s

1.     Yatra.com, SCO-16-17, Sector 9D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Manager..

2.     M/s Spicejet Ltd., 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase IV, Gurgaon, Haryana throgh its Manager..

              ....Respondents.

Argued by:            Ms. Anuradha Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

                    None for respondent No.1.

                    Sh. R. K. Singla, Advocate for responent No.2.

PER  JAGROOP  SINGH  MAHAL, MEMBER.

1.                 Vide this common order, we dispose of two appeals under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 bearing No.113 of 2010 filed by the OP No.2 – M/s Spicejet Ltd and the other bearing No.152 of 201 filed by the complainant against one and the same order dated 3.2.2010 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) vide which the complaint was allowed and the OPs were jointly and severally directed to refund a sum of Rs.900/- being the cancellation charges of the return ticket, Rs.10,459 being the excess fare charged by OP No.2 on account of return ticket for 30.12.2008, Rs.20,000/- as compensation for physical harassment, inconvenience, mental pain and agony besides Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.  The order was to be complied with within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order failing which OPs were to pay the amount of Rs.31,359/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of booking of the air tickets i.e. 26.12.2008 till actual payment.

2.                 Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that she being a H-1B visa holder came to India on 26.12.2008 for appointment for a job opportunity in UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) at Cochine on 29.12.2008 at 12:30 PM. Accordingly, her mother Smt. Asha Mittal purchased a ticket of Spice Jet for her daughter i.e. the complainant Ms. Prapti Mittal for 29.12.2008 from new Delhi to Cochin and another ticket for return journey on the same day of Indigo Airlines from Cochine to New Delhi vide Annexure P-3. It was averred that the ticket was purchased from Chandigarh from OP No.1 i.e. Yatra.com and the payment of Rs.12,287/- was also made through credit card. The flight was scheduled to start from New Delhi at 6 A.M and reach Cochine by 10:55 AM, but to the utter surprise of the complainant when she received a SMS from Spicejet at midnight that the flight had been preponed and it would now leave at 4:50 A.M instead of 6 A.M and she was supposed to reach the airport by 2:50 A.M. It was next averred that when the complainant reached airport, she was informed that the flight had been delayed and now it would take off at 12:30 P.M. All the passengers were boarded at 7 A.M. but the flight did not take off till 12:30 P.M and finally, the flight took off around 2 P.M and reached Cochine at 6:30 P.M. The complainant, it was averred, had to cancel her return flight by Indigo for which she had to pay Rs.750/- and OP No.1 also charged from her cancellation charges to the tune of Rs.150/-. As per the complainant, she had to purchase another one way ticket from Spice Jet for which she was charged Rs.16,024/-. The grouse of the complainant was that rather than compensating her, OP No.2 charged from her almost triple the amount adding salt to her miseries due to deficiency on the part of OP No.2 and she was left with no option but had to pay the demanded money. As per the complainant, this flight was scheduled to take off from Cochine at 9:35 A.M. on 30.12.2008 and was supposed to reach New Delhi by 2:30 P.M. But to the utter surprise of the complainant, she received a message early in the morning on 30.12.2008 that the flight would take off at 6:30 P.M. causing further inconvenience and harassment to the complainant as she was stranded at Kochi for two days without any stay arrangement or necessary change required for stay. It was averred that after such a horrifying experience, complainant’s mother lodged a complaint with Spice Jet authorities vide complaint No.CR/27699/2008 but nothing was done by OP No.2. Due to the above negligent and irresponsible actions of OP No.2, the complainant was not able to keep her appointment for job opportunity nor she was able to return on 29.12.2008 by Indigo flight. Alleging the aforesaid acts of OPs as deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant filed the present complaint.

3.                In its reply, OP No.1 pleaded that the complainant purchased a ticket of Spice Jet Airlines from New Delhi to Cochin and another ticket for return journey of Indigo Air from Cochine to New Delhi through online booking from them. It was admitted that she cancelled her return flight from Cochine to New Delhi for which she was charged Rs.900/- as cancellation charges out of which Rs.150/- were kept by OP No.1 and the remaining Rs.750/- were retained by OP No.2. It was pleaded that the actual price of the ticket purchased by the complainant on 29.12.2008 was Rs.16,024/- whereas Rs.5,565/- was the fare prevalent on 14.6.2009. Pleading no deficiency in service on its part, OP No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                 In its reply, OP No.2 pleaded that on 29.12.2008, there was a thick fog in the entire North India severely affecting the operation of the flights and other modes of transport; that almost all the flights were delayed due to poor visibility. It was pleaded that as per the Performance Chart, the flight was postponed on account of thick fog and very poor visibility at New Delhi Airport; that the life of hundreds of passengers was more important than the delays in flight and that too for the reasons beyond power and control of OP No.2; that the aircraft was very much there but the same could not take off without the clearance from ATC (Air Traffic Controllers), which is an independent body of Govt. regulating the air traffic in India. Pleading no deficiency in service on its part, this OP also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                 The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 

6.                 After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint vide the impugned order dated 3.2.2010 as already mentioned in the opening para of the judgment.

7.                 The complainant as well as OP No.2 have challenged the impugned order through separate appeals as mentioned above. Whereas the complainant has filed appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned District Forum, the OP No.2 has preferred appeal for setting aside the impugned order and dismissing the complaint.

8.                 We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

9.                 The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the compensation awarded to the complainant is too meager as compared to the harassment caused to her by the OPs. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP No.2 has argued that the flight was delayed due to bad weather and there was no fault on the part of OP No.2. He referred to Rule 1 and 19 of the Rules framed under The Carriage By Air Act, 1972 and contended that the OP No.2 was not liable for the damage caused due to delay on account of the bad weather. He has referred to the news item dated 30.12.2008 appearing in ‘Hindustan times’ to the effect that thick fog threw life out of gear in Delhi on Monday morning; that road, rail and air traffic were all effected; that flights were cancelled; trains delayed and those on the roads were not safe. It further mentions that three people died on the roads of the capital in the early hours, while two were killed in Greater Noida. According to this report, countless passengers were stuck at the airport and railway stations due to delays. It was said to be the worst fog of the season in Delhi and adjoining areas. The learned counsel also placed on file copy of e-mail dated 30.12.2008 giving the poor visibility at the airport due to which the plains were delayed. He also referred to the Daily Performance Report of 29.12.2008 showing that the flights were late. It is on the basis of this evidence that the learned counsel argued that they have sufficiently proved that  there was fog at the airport and it was beyond their control due to which  the flight was delayed. These documents were not believed by the learned District Forum on the ground that the same were neither signed nor authenticated by any competent authority of OP No.2 or of New Delhi Airport. We are, however, of the opinion that it is of common knowledge  that there is a fog in the last week of December almost every year and when a news item had appeared in the paper in this respect, the evidence adduced by OP No.2 could not be brushed aside so lightly specially when there is no evidence led by the complainant to prove that the sky was clear on that day. An e-mail, which has been produced by the OP, is not required to be signed. These have been attested to be true copies by the counsel for the OP and therefore, no further authentication was needed. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the flight was delayed due to bad weather and it was not in the control of OP No.2. The OP No.2, therefore, could not be burdened with compensation for causing harassment to the complainant.

10.               It is admitted that the flight reached late due to which the complainant could not participate in the interview. Due to this very reason, she could not catch the return flight to New Delhi by Indigo Airlines. The return ticket was got cancelled by the complainant on which she spent Rs.900/-. The complainant obtained the return ticket from OP No.2 and they charged from her Rs.16,024/- though the earlier ticket, which was got cancelled was only for Rs.6,424/-. In this manner, the complainant had to pay Rs.9,600/- i.e. (Rs.16,024 – Rs.6,424) plus Rs.900/- paid by the complainant for cancellation of the return ticket. The complainant, therefore, suffered damages to the extent of Rs.10,500/- for no fault of her and the OP No.2 would be liable to compensate her for this damage. Needless to mention that the OP is not liable to pay the compensation of Rs.20,000/- imposed by the learned District Forum for physical harassment, inconvenience, mental pain and agony.

11.               In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that both the appeals partly succeed and the same are according partly allowed. The complainant is held entitled to the refund of only Rs.10,500/- along with Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs awarded by the learned District Forum. If the entire amount is not paid within 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order, OP No.2 would be liable to pay the same along with interest @12% per annum since the passing of the impugned order i.e. 3.2.2010 till the amount is actually paid to the complainant.

12.               Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

4^th March 2011.

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

Ad/-

STATE COMMISSION

(Appeal No.113 of 2010)

Argued by:            Sh. R. K. Singla, Advocate for the appellant.

                    Ms. Anuradha Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1.

                    None for respondent No.2.

Dated the 4^th day of March, 2011.

ORDER

                    Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately, this appeal along with cross appeal bearing FA No.152 of 2010 have been partly allowed.

(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL)                                              (NEENA SANDHU)    

                MEMBER                                                            PRESIDING MEMBER                    

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

(Appeal No.152 of 2010)

                                                                    Date of Institution:05.04.2010

                                                                   Date of Decision  :04.03.2011

Ms. Prapti Mittal D/o Smt. Asha Mittal R/o A-204, GHS-30, Sector 20, Panchkula (presently residing at URS-1333, Broadway Suite No.8 Oakland California, USA) through Smt. Asha Mittal, Authorised Representative of complainant.

……Appellant.

V e r s u s

1.     Yatra.com, SCO-16-17, Sector 9D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Manager..

2.     M/s Spicejet Ltd., 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase IV, Gurgaon, Haryana throgh its Manager..

              ....Respondents.

BEFORE:            MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDING MEMBER.

                        S.  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by:            Ms. Anuradha Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

                    None for respondent No.1.

                    Sh. R. K. Singla, Advocate for responent No.2.

PER  JAGROOP  SINGH  MAHAL, MEMBER.

1.                 For orders, see the orders passed in FA No.113 of 2010 titled ‘M/s Spicejet Ltd. Vs. Ms. Prapti Mittal and another’ vide which this appeal has been partly allowed.

2.                 Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

4^th March 2011.

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

Ad/-