KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No.482/2018
JUDGEMENT DATED: 05.08.2022
(Against the Order in C.C.No.82/2018 of CDRC, Malappuram)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN | : | PRESIDENT |
SRI. T.S.P. MOOSATH | : | JUDICIAL MEMBER |
SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN | : | MEMBER |
APPELLANTS:
1. | Indigo Airlines, Kozhikkode International Airport, Karippur, Malappuram – 673 647 |
2. | Indigo Airlines, Corporate Office, Tower C, Global Business Park, Mehrali, Gurgaon Road, Haryana – 122 002 |
(by Advs. Vivek Sarin & Narayan R.)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
| Nadeer Angadi Valappil Kizhakke Puthiya Valappil, Thikkodi P.O., Pin – 673 529 Kozhikkode represented by Power of Attorney Holder, Shajila W/o Nadeer, Kizhakke Puthiya Valappil, Thikkodi P.O., Pin – 673 529, Koyilandi Taluk, Kozhikkode |
(by Adv. P.A. Jaleel)
JUDGEMENT
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
The opposite parties in C.C.No.82/2018 are in appeal challenging the final order dated 31.05.2018 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission for short). As per the order appealed against, the complaint has been allowed and the appellants have been directed to refund an amount of Rs.10,500/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Five Hundred) being the ticket charge and Rs.4,500/- (Rupees Four Thousand Five Hundred) being the taxi charge of the complainant. An amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) has been ordered to be paid as compensation for the deficiency in service for mental agony and hardships. A further amount of Rs2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) has been ordered to be paid as costs of the proceedings. The complainant is the respondent herein.
2. The respondent had booked a ticket to Qatar on 26.02.2018. The date of the proposed journey was 04.03.2018. Accordingly, he had reached the airport and had approached the counter to take his boarding pass. He was then asked to show his Visa, which was immediately handed over by him. He waited for almost two hours at the counter, after which the 1st appellant informed him that his journey was not possible since there was a mismatch in the name shown in his Visa. Though he approached the service centre, they were not helpful. He was told that if he paid Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) they would make arrangements for his journey. As a result, he lost his taxi charge and ticket charge. Therefore he claimed his ticket charge, taxi charge and also compensation for the mental agony caused to him, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellants.
3. The appellants were exparte before the District Commission. Therefore, the complainant filed chief affidavit and marked Exhibits A1 to A5 documents on his side.
4. The District Commission considered the evidence on record and found that the respondent was entitled to the reliefs claimed in the complaint. It was accordingly that the complaint has been allowed, as stated above.
5. According to Advocate Narayan, who appeared for the appellants, there was actually no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. The respondent was denied boarding pass for the reason that he did not carry adequate travel documents. Therefore, the appellants were fully justified in their action. For the above reasons, according to the counsel, it is necessary to provide the appellants with a further opportunity to place and prove their case before the District Commission. For the purpose, he seeks a remand of this matter, after setting aside the order appealed against.
6. Heard. Having considered the contentions put forward on behalf of the appellants, we are of the view that there is no scope for granting any of the reliefs sought for in this appeal. This is for the reason that, though notice had been received by the appellants they had not appeared before the District Commission or filed their version in the complaint. Therefore, the District Commission had proceeded to finally dispose of the complaint, exparte.
7. As per the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020)5 SCC 757the maximum time limit available to an opposite party in a complaint to file his version is thirty days after receipt of notice in the matter. The period can only be extended for a further period of fifteen days by the District Commission. Once the said period expires, the only course open to the District Commission is to proceed to dispose of the complaint finally, exparte. There is no provision to enlarge the time limit, by any authority. In view of the above authoritative pronouncement by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, it has to be held that there is no infirmity in the procedure adopted by the District Commission in this case. A remand of the matter for the purpose of facilitating the appellants to file version is also not permissible in view of the dictum of the Apex Court referred to above. The above being the position of law, we are not satisfied that any relief could be granted to the appellant as sought for.
In the result, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN | : | PRESIDENT |
T.S.P. MOOSATH | : | JUDICIAL MEMBER |
K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN | : | MEMBER |
SL
