Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/132/2016

Spicejet Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sh. Viney Vaid - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Punj, Adv.

04 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Appeal No.	:	132 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	28.04.2016
Date of Decision	:	04.05.2016

Spicejet Ltd., 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon – 122 016.

.…Appellant/Opposite Party No.2.

Versus

(1) Sh. Viney Vaid, S/o Sh. Shiv Kumar Vaid, R/o Flat No.165, GH-03, HEWO Apartments, Sector – 5, MDC, Panchkula – 134 114.

……Respondent/Complainant.

(2) Make My Trip, through its M.D., Tower-A, SP Infocity, 243, Udyog Vihar, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana.

…..Respondent/Opposite Party No.3.

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

BEFORE: SH. DEV RAJ, PRESIDING MEMBER.

SMT. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

Argued by:

Sh. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate for the applicants/appellants.

PER DEV RAJ, PRESIDING MEMBER

This appeal has been filed by Opposite Party No.2 (now appellant), against the order dated 29.02.2016, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’), vide which, consumer complaint bearing No.506 of 2014 was allowed against Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 and they were, jointly and severally, held liable and directed as under:-

“13] As the deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 & 2 is proved, therefore, the present complaint deserves to be allowed against Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 and dismissed qua Opposite Party No.3. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed against OPs No.1 & 2 and dismissed qua Opposite Party No.3. The OPs No.1 & 2 are jointly & severally directed as under:-

To reimburse/pay an amount of Rs.51,303/- (i.e. Rs.67,126 – Rs.15,823/-) to the complainant, spent by him for return journey (Ann.C-4) through GOAIR Airlines;
To pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of mental tension, agony, harassment suffered on account of deficiency in service and for the unfair trade practice of Opposite Party No.1 & 2.
To pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.

This order shall be complied with by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 jointly & severally within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall be liable to pay the amount as mentioned in sub-para (i) & (ii) above to the complainant along with interest @18% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint till realization, besides paying litigation expenses.”

However, the complaint against Opposite Party No.3 was dismissed by the Forum.

2. The facts in brief are that the complainant through Opposite Party No.3, booked four tickets in advance of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 i.e. for himself, his wife and two sons for 8.6.2014, from Chandigarh to Srinagar as well as return tickets for 15th June, 2014 from Srinagar to Chandigarh. It was stated that the complainant got the tickets booked in February, 2014 i.e. in advance in order to avoid tension and harassment. It was further stated that to utter surprise of the complainant, he received a call from Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 stating that the return flight booked by him for 15.6.2014 from Srinagar to Chandigarh got cancelled and was offered the return flight for some other date. It was further stated that though the representative of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 assured the complainant that his return tickets for 16.6.2014 would be confirmed by 10^th or 11^th June, 2014, but they never confirmed the same despite numerous requests. It was further stated that the complainant ultimately had to hire services of GOAIR and arranged the tickets by paying an amount of Rs.68,284/- from Srinagar to New Delhi. It was further stated that from New Delhi to Chandigarh, the complainant had to hire taxi on which he spent Rs.6,000/-. It was further stated that the complainant also sent a legal notice to the Opposite Parties, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed seeking various reliefs.

3. Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, in their joint written statement, while admitting the factual matrix of the case with regard to bookings made by the complainant as well as cancellation of return flight stated that the complainant was very well intimated 10 days in advance about the cancellation of the flight and refund of the entire amount equivalent to the booking amount for the return journey had also been made. It was further stated that the answering Opposite Parties were entitled under the terms & conditions to cancel or delay the commencement or continuance of the flight or to alter the stopping place or to deviate from the route of the journey or to change the type of aircraft in use without thereby incurring any liability in damages on any ground whatsoever. It was further stated that Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are governed by the Rules and Regulations framed by the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), which is a regulatory body and as per Para 3.3.2 of the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR), issued by the DGCA on 6^th August, 2012, relating to cancellation of flights, the operating airline’s liability for compensation arises only when the passengers have not been informed about the cancellation at least three hours prior to departure of the flight on which they were scheduled to travel. It was further stated that in the present case, the answering Opposite Parties had intimated the complainant well in advance and duly made the refund of the amount. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, nor they indulged into any unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4. Opposite Party No.3, in its written statement, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that it merely facilitated the booking of the air tickets in the name of complainant. It was further stated that it (Opposite Party No.3) had no liability towards the complainant for any deficiency in service if caused at the end of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 as per Section 230 of Indian Contract Act, 1872. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.3, being the booking agent, duly discharged its limited liability by issuing the confirmed tickets to the complainant. It was further stated that the return journey flight was cancelled by the Airline (Opposite Parties No.1 & 2) for the reasons best known to them and Opposite Party No.3 could not be held liable for the same. It was further stated that the Airlines refunded the amount of unutilized cancelled tickets (Rs.15,823/-) and the same had been initiated from Opposite Party No.3 and shall reflect in the complainant’s account. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.3, nor it indulged into any unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

5. The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the Forum, allowed the complaint against Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 only and dismissed the same against Opposite Partyy No.3, vide the impugned order, as stated above.

7. Feeling aggrieved, Opposite Party No.2 has filed the instant appeal.

8. Alongwith the appeal, an application for condonation of delay of 6 days in filing the appeal has been filed. However, as per office report, there is no delay.

9. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, at the preliminary stage, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

10. After hearing the Counsel for the appellant and going through 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.

11. It is evident that respondent No.1/complainant booked flight for himself and his family in advance so that there may not be any inconvenience to them for the return journey. The complainant in his complaint specifically averred that Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, while intimating cancellation of flight from Srinagar to Chandigarh, had offered return flight and his request for confirmation of return flight for 16.06.2014 was kept pending despite numerous requests. This averment remained unrebutted. On receipt of intimation regarding cancellation of Spicejet flight, respondent No.1/complainant vide email dated 09.06.2014 (at Page 21 of the Forum’s file) requested the appellant, to arrange some alternate return option (flight) on 15^th June or maximum on 16^th June, as he had an urgent meeting schedule on 17^th June. Respondent No.1/complainant had also placed, on record, of Forum’s file, copies of emails dated 09.06.2014, 11.6.2014 and 11.06.2014 (at Pages 24, 25 & 26 of Forum’s file) received by him from the appellant, to show that he was not accommodated in any alternate flight for return journey. The aforesaid emails, being relevant are extracted hereunder:-

“Email dated 09.06.2014.

Thank you for writing to SpiceJet. We value your feedback and suggestions. Our Customer Relations Team will get back to you at the earliest.

Email dated 11.06.2014.

Thank you for writing to SpiceJet. We value your feedback and suggestions. Our Customer Relations Team will get back to you at the earliest.

Email dated 11.06.2014.

This is with reference to CR/301275/2014 against the cancellation of flight Sg-532 dated 15^th June 2014.

We regret for the inconvenience caused however please note that we shall get back to you at the earliest.

Your patience in this regard shall be highly appreciated.

Assuring you of our best attention at all times.”

The contents of above emails sent by the appellant clearly indicate that it (appellant) did not send any concrete reply to respondent No.1/complainant. This clearly amounted to deficiency in rendering service.

12. Subsequently, respondent No.1/complainant on 11.6.2016 again sent email to the appellant stating that he was facing lot of mental stress due to uncertainty and he was not able to enjoy his stay with his family and only struggling for his return flights. He again requested the appellant to confirm him on urgent basis with his return tickets on 15^th June or maximum 16^th June through spicejet or any other operator like Indigo, Jet etc. The said email was followed by another email dated 12.06.2014 (at page 28 of Forum’s file) wherein respondent No.1/complainant requested the appellant to resolve the issue on urgent basis as he had to go back to his destination on time i.e. 15^th June, as is apparent from the said email.

13. However, it was only much later vide email dated 14.6.2014 (Exhibit C-3), that the appellant expressed its inability to accommodate the complainant in the alternate flight. Email dated 14.6.2014 aforesaid, being relevant, is extracted hereunder:-

“As per our telecom today, regarding discontinuation of the departure time of flight SC 532 dated 15^th June 2014, we would like to take this opportunity to apologize for the inconvenience caused.

Please note that in case of flight discontinuation passenger may choose either of the options:

They may cancel the reservation and take full refund on request back to the original mode of payment.
They may shift their particular flight to the next available flight within 7 days (prior/ahead) from the original date of travel free of cost.

Please note that flight schedules are subject to change and regulatory authority approvals.

On receipt of information the change in flight time messages were sent out to the number mentioned on the PNR (9988022012). Additionally, en email informing Passengers of the same was also sent to

Since the alternate flights are not available for the said dates, you may take full refund for the vide above mentioned PNR by calling on the numbers mentioned below.

Further please be informed that we would not be in a position to compensate for discontinuation of this flight.”

14. The contents of aforesaid email clearly reveal that complainant and his family were kept in uncertainty for a number of days and no sincere effort was made to resolve the issue. The deficiency attributable to the appellant was galore, as rightly held by the Forum in Para Nos.8 to 12 of its order, which are extracted hereunder:-

“8] From the above submissions and from thorough perusal of the record, it is clear that the complainant booked four tickets i.e. for himself, his wife and two sons, for 8.6.2014 in advance from Chandigarh to Srinagar and return tickets for 15th June, 2014 from Srinagar to Chandigarh of OPs No.1 & 2, through Opposite Party No.3. Admittedly, due to certain changes at the end of OPs No.1 & 2 the complainant & his family boarded the flight on 9.6.2014 from Chandigarh to Srinagar. It is also not in dispute that the return flight for 15.6.2014 was cancelled by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 without assigning any reason. The e-mails exchanged between the parties (Ann.C-2 to C-4) clearly made out that the OPs No.1 & 2 not only rendered deficient services, but resorted to unfair trade practice, due to their arbitrary decision to cancel the flight, without assigning any reason for the same. There is nothing on record to corroborate the stand taken by OPs No.1 & 2 in their written statement as well as in the written arguments. The copies of e-mail correspondences tendered by the complainant are enough to establish that the complainant constantly requested the OPs for the adjustment of the flight for 15.6.2014 or 16.6.2014 but was kept in lurch by the representative of OPs No.1 & 2 for indefinite period and no arrangements were made for their return flight.

9] At one point of time, the OPs No.1 & 2 in its written statement claimed that the return flight was cancelled due to introduction of new Summer Schedule and in their written arguments, they submitted that the flight was cancelled due to technical and operational reasons i.e. reason beyond the power and control of operating airlines. Both the statements goes unproved for the lack of evidence to corroborate the same.

10] The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 had claimed in their defence that they had well intimated the complainant 10 days before about the cancellation of the flight and also made the refund of booking amount of Rs.15,823/-, but again failed to place on record any evidence in this regard, but at the same time, the complainant has also not denied the factum of refund made to him.

11] In our concerted opinion, the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are not fair on their part and this omission on their part to act fairly, caused great harassment to the complainant, who had to made fresh arrangements for the fresh booking for his return journey and it can be well presumed that he might have remained under constant pressure throughout the trip for no fault on his part. The record reveals that the complainant booked the tickets well in advance in order to avoid any inconvenience. But all the dreams of the complainant got shattered due to the deficient as well as arbitrary services rendered by OPs No.1 & 2 and was forced to pay an extra amount for on the spot booking, which he never intended to pay. In our considered opinion the rules and regulations are meant to provide the guidelines to deal with the particular (emergent) situation in the prescribed manner and they should not molded as per the suitability. If the Airlines (OPs NO.1 & 2) had to cancel the flight without assigning any urgent reason, then what is necessity to allure the customers/passengers to go for advance bookings by paying less of the amount, which in deed comes out differently when the proposed flight got cancelled for no valid reasons. This arbitrary practice needs to be curbed for the benefit of the public at large.

12] In view of the above observations, we are of the opinion that OPs No.1 & 2 are not only liable on account of their deficiency in service but also liable having indulging in unfair trade practice. In addition they are also liable to pay for the difference of the amount which the complainant was forced to pay on account of purchasing fresh tickets. However, as the complainant has not placed on record any proof in regard to expenses incurred amounting to Rs.6000/- for the taxi hired by him for the journey from Delhi to Chandigarh, we are not passing any order for the refund.”

15. Clearly, respondent No.1/complainant had to hire services of GOAIR and arranged the tickets by paying an amount of Rs.68,284/- from Srinagar to New Delhi, whereas in the original flight, they were to travel directly from Srinagar to Chandigarh. Respondent No.1/complainant got the reservation made for journey to be undertaken in June 2014 in the month of February 2014 to enjoy his stay/holidays in Srinagar but firstly due to cancellation of flight by the appellant and then by not responding to his repeated emails for alternate booking, he and his family were kept in lurch. Respondent No.1/complainant had to incur huge expenditure on flight of another airline to Delhi and he and his family were forced to additionally travel by road from Delhi to Chandigarh, thereby experiencing lot of inconvenience and additional expenditure due to deficiency in rendering service by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 were duty bound to clearly reveal respondent No.1/complainant in time that it was not possible to accommodate them in the alternative flight. When they (Opposite Parties No.1 & 2) failed to do so, in our opinion, they cannot escape of their liability taking shelter under the rules and regulations framed by Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA). Even refund of Rs.15,823/- was not made instantly but was processed/made much later i.e. after about a year, as is evident from Page 98 of Forum file and its order dated 10.07.2015.

16. Thus, the Forum in Para 12 of its order rightly held that Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 were not only liable on account of their deficiency in service but they also indulged into unfair trade practice and as such, they were liable to pay for the difference of the amount, which the complainant was forced to pay on account of purchasing fresh tickets. But since the complainant had not placed, on record, any proof with regard to expenses incurred to the tune Rs.6000/- for the taxi hired by him for the journey from Delhi to Chandigarh, the Forum rightly disallowed the claim of respondent No.1/complainant on this count. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Forum, being based on true appreciation of facts and law, does not call for any interference.

17. The compensation in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and litigation expenses in the sum of Rs.5,000/-, in the face of facts and circumstances of the case, are also justified.

18. No other point was urged by the Counsel for the appellant.