Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/322/2015

Spicejet Ltd, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rajeev Tandon - Opp.Party(s)

02 Dec 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.               :    322 of 2015 

Date of Institution    :    30.11.2015

Date of Decision       :    02.12.2015

 

SpiceJet Ltd., 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon 122016.

……Appellant/Opposite Party No.1.

Versus

1. Sh. Rajeev Tandon S/o Late Sh. Raj Kumar Tandon, R/o H.No.1541, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh.

….Respondent/Complainant.

2. Sh. Sandesh Kumar (mentioned as Mr. Sandesh Kanwar in the complaint), Corporate Flyers Pvt. Ltd., SCO-60-62, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

               ....Respondents/Opposite Party No.2.

 

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                SMT. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Amit Punj, Advocate for the appellant.

 

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                This appeal is directed against the order dated 05.08.2015, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which it allowed the complaint of the complainant (now respondent No.1) against Opposite Party No.1 (now appellant) only and directed it as under:-

“7.    In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. Opposite Party No.1 is directed as under ;-

(i)          To pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.

(ii)        To pay a sum of Rs.5,500/- as litigation expenses.

This order be complied with by Opposite Party No.1, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(i) above shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.

8.     However, the complaint qua OP No.2 stands dismissed.

 

2.             The facts, in brief, are that respondent No.1 booked four tickets of Spice Air Jet Flight No.SG-104 for his family members for 24.12.2014 for Port Blair by paying Rs.73,028/- through OP No.2 on 27.11.2014 (Annexures C-1 and C-2).  It was further stated that he took the tickets of the appellant to get the meals especially for his son –Arman who is suffering from cerebral palsy and was to be carried on wheel chair all the time. It was further stated that the flight was scheduled to take off at 7.55 a.m. and had a stopover at Calcutta for 40 minutes.  It was further stated that on 24.12.2014, the flight was delayed from scheduled time of 7.55 a.m. to around 10.00 a.m. and the whole family of respondent No.1 had not taken any breakfast outside the flight expecting to have the same in the flight. It was also stated that it was very difficult to stay hungry for such a long time. To his utter surprise, no food was served in the flight and on enquiry from the cabin crew, he (respondent No.1) was told that the option of giving food to passengers  in the flight had been cancelled.  It was further stated that when the flight was stopped for 40 minutes at Calcutta, the passengers were to remain inside the aircraft and it was a tough time for respondent No.1 and his family members because they had to remain hungry.  It was further stated that seeing the condition of his son, respondent No.1 requested the crew team to provide some food to his son and take some extra money but to no effect.  It was further stated that even on the ticket/boarding pass of the appellant’s flight, food provisions were specifically mentioned. It was further stated that when respondent No.1 on reaching Port Blair did not find wheel chair of his son-Armaan in his luggage, he contacted the staff of the appellant who informed him that by mistake they had dropped the wheel chair of the child at Kolkata Airport. Respondent No.1 had to take his child in his arms for full one day till the appellant got it back from Kolkata. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the appellant, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice.     When the grievance of respondent No.1, was not redressed, left with no alternative, he filed complaint claiming refund of the amount paid for the food in flight and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation  for harassment and agony suffered by him.

3.             The appellant, in its written statement, admitted that respondent No.1 had got the tickets, in question, booked on 27.11.2014 through respondent No.2 for the date of travel 24.12.2014. It was further stated that since second/third week of December, 2014, due to some technical reasons/dispute with caterers i.e. TAJSATS, they suddenly and abruptly stopped supplies of meals.  It was further stated that since the supplies were stopped suddenly and abruptly, the appellant at a such a short notice could not arrange meals from any other caterer.  The said problem subsisted for about couple of weeks and thereafter the matter was sorted out and there was regular and un-interrupted supply of meals.   It was further stated that in order to ensure that no inconvenience is caused to the passengers, it immediately started sending message/mail/sms to the passengers that ““Dear Spicejet Customer: We are sorry to inform you that due to technical reasons your pre-booked meal will not be served on your upcoming Spicejet flight(s). We will provide you the refund as per the payment mode. We regret the inconvenience caused.” It was further stated that respondent No.1 might not have received the said information inasmuch as in the column of passenger contact information, the contract number, mobile number, e-mail etc. of respondent No.2 had been mentioned. It was further stated that the appellant was not aware as to whether the aforesaid information had been passed on by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1.  It was further stated that the appellant could not provide meals to respondent No.1 and other fellow passengers on account of the aforesaid circumstances.  The remaining averments were denied, being wrong.

4.             Respondent No.2 in its reply stated that he had performed his duties and there was no laxity regarding reservation done, as respondent No.1 had admitted that he travelled on the basis of the tickets generated by respondent No.2.  The remaining averments were denied, being wrong.

5.             We have heard the Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, at the preliminary stage, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 

6.             After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter.

7.             On perusal of record, it transpires that the grievance of respondent No.1 was two-fold. Firstly, he alongwith his family members were not provided food/meal though as per stipulation on the boarding pass, there was provision for the same. It has been admitted by the appellant that since 2^nd/3^rd week of December 2014, due to dispute with caterers i.e. TAJSATS, supplies of food/meal were suddenly and abruptly stopped and the appellant could not arrange meals from any other caterer. If the supply was stopped by the caterer, with whom the appellant had arrangements, appellant was duty bound to make alternate arrangements and respondent No.1 and his family members could not be allowed to suffer on that account. Though it is claimed by the appellant that SMS was sent to respondent No.2 but no cogent evidence has been produced that the same was transmitted to respondent No.1. In any case, transmission of any such SMS does not absolve the appellant of its liability to provide food. The District Forum, thus, rightly held in Para 6 of its order that it was not an uphill task for a reputed company like appellant to make alternative arrangements for the meals to be served to the passengers travelling in its flight on 24.12.2014 especially when it had prior knowledge that the caterers had stopped the supplies of the meals since the second week of December 2014 as alleged by it. Thus, by not making timely alternative arrangements for the meals to be served to the complainant and his family members, the appellant was deficient in rendering service and it caused mental agony and physical harassment to respondent No.1 and his family members.

8.             The second grievance of respondent No.1 was that when he reached Port Blair, he could not find wheel chair of his son-Armaan in his luggage and on contacting the staff of the appellant, it was informed that by mistake they had dropped the wheel chair of the child at Kolkata Airport. However, the stand of the appellant in its written statement was that at no point of time, respondent No.1 ever informed it about the medical condition of child and even otherwise, the alleged medical condition of child had no bearing on the present case. Respondent No.1 placed on record Annexure C-3, which is Photocopy of Disability Certificate of his son, wherein his date of birth and address has been given as 12-NOV-03 and #1541, Sector 7C, Chandigarh respectively. The appellant neither controverted this document nor challenged its authenticity while filing its reply. Merely, by simply stating that it was not in its (appellant) knowledge that the child was disabled, it cannot be absolved from its liability of providing adequate assistance and care to the child. Interestingly, in Para 10 of its reply, the appellant has stated that the wheel chair was provided to respondent No.1 (complainant). Once the appellant provided wheel chair to respondent No.1, that means, it was very much in its knowledge that the child of respondent No.1 was disabled. Thus, the appellant took contradictory stand in its reply by firstly stating that the condition of the child was not in its knowledge and secondly, by stating that it had provided the wheel chair. This also clearly amounted to deficiency in rendering service on the part of the appellant. 

9.             No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.1.

10.           In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality, warranting the interference of this Commission.

11.           For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order dated 05.08.2015 passed by the District Forum is upheld.

12.           Consequently, the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is dismissed being rendered infructuous.

13.           Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

14.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

December  02,  2015.

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 [DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

 [PADMA PANDEY]

 MEMBER