Andhra Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/211/09

M/S INTER GLOBE AVIATION LTD. THRU MS.NAMRATA SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHRI S.N.MINDA - Opp.Party(s)

M/S INDUS LAW FIRM

18 Aug 2009

ORDER

 
First Appeal No. FA/211/09
(Arisen out of Order Dated null in Case No. of District Hyderabad-II)
 
1. M/S INTER GLOBE AVIATION LTD. THRU MS.NAMRATA SINGH
SENIOR LEGAL COUNSEL LEVEL 1, TOWER C, MEHRAULI GURGAON ROAD,
GURGAON-122 002
Andhra Pradesh
2. M/S INDIGO
REP.BY ITS MD. BEGUMPET AIRPORT BEGUMPET, HYD.
HYDERABAD
ANDHRA PRADESH
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. SHRI S.N.MINDA
R/O PLOT NO.40, JYOTHI COLONY, SEC-BAD-500 015.
SECUNDERABAD
Andhra Pradesh
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

 

BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DIPSUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION :HYDERABAD

 

F.A.No.211/2009  against C.C.No.154/2008, Dist. Forum-II, Hyderabad.    

Between:

1.InterGlobe Aviation Ltd.,

   Through Ms.Namrata Singh,

    Senior Legal Counsel

    Level 1,Tower C,

   Global Business Park,

    Mehrauli Gurgaon Road,

    Gurgaon – 122 002,

    Haryana. 

 

2. M/s. Indigo,

    Begumpet Airport

    Begumpet , Hyderabad,

    Rep. by its Managing Director.                           …Appellants/

                                                                           Opp.parties

              And

 

Shri S.N.Minda,

S/o.Late Gajanand Minda ,

r/o.Plot no.40, Jyothi Colony,

Secunderabad -500 015.                                       … Respondent/

                                                                            Complainant       

  

Counsel for the Appellants          :     M/s.Indus Law Firm                                                                                                                  

Counsel for the Respondent       :                   -   

CORAM : SMT. M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER

AND

SRI K.SATYANAND, HON’BLE MEMBER

 

                TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST,

                                TWO THOUSAND NINE. 

       

Oral Order (Per  Smt M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)

                                           ***

        Aggrieved by the order in C.C.154/2008  on the file of District Forum-II, Hyderabad , the opposite parties preferred this appeal. 

 

        The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant was   scheduled to participate in Satguru Darshan &  Satsangh  on 15th and 16th December, 2007  at Beas, Punjab  and purchased a flight ticket to travel on 14.12.2007 at 9.10 a.m. in flight no.6E 302  for his journey  from Hyderabad to New Delhi  from opposite party no.1  who is an agent of opposite party n.2. The  flight is scheduled to arrive   at New Delhi at 11.15  a.m. and from Delhi to Beas  the complainant has to travel in the train  and  return from Beas to New Delhi  on 17.12.2007  for which he got the reserved ticket in train No. 8102  and from New Delhi to Hyderabad   he was  scheduled to travel by Spicejet on  18.12.2007 at 8.10 a.m.  The complainant submits that this  Satsang Satguru Darshan  was of  great  sentimental value to  him. The complainant arrived at the airport on 14.12.2007  two hours prior to schedule time.  Opposite Party no.1 issued the boarding pass and allotted  seat no.15A.  In the Boarding pass the   boarding time  was mentioned as 10.50 a.m.   and the complainant  questioned the delay at the  time of boarding itself  and when the complainant was in security check he was informed that due to fog the flight was cancelled.  The complainant submits that if the fog was there  the other flights could not have been taken off from the Airport  and  in the same timings  Kingfisher 801 flight  take off  at 10.33 a.m.  The complainant submits that he paid Rs.3,420/- from Hyderabad to New Delhi which amount was not returned to him . The complainant could not catch  the other flight and he cancelled all his tickets and the opposite party also charged Rs.750/- towards cancellation charges  and the railway authorities collected Rs.60/-  towards cancellation charges. Hence the complainant approached the District Forum seeking direction to the opposite parties to refund  Rs.3,420/- with interest at 18%,  refund cancellation charges of Rs.750/-  towards the Spicejet cancellation charges and to refund Rs.60/- towards the cancellation charges of return railway ticket, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards costs.      

The opposite parties filed counter stating that only due to dense fog and bad   weather at Delhi Airport the flight no.6E 301 was delayed  and ultimately cancelled for  reasons  beyond  their control since the visibility at Delhi  airport dropped to around 50 mts. and the runway visibility range dropped to 75 mts.  Therefore flight 6E 301  which was scheduled to depart from Delhi at 6.15 a.m. and arrive at Hyderabad at 8.30 a.m. could not take off at scheduled time.  At 10.30 a.m.  officials of the opposite party Hyderabad airport  received a call from the centralized Indigo Operations Control Center   that  the Flight 6E 301  from Delhi stood cancelled due to reasons  beyond their control. The opposite parties submit that  there is  no deficiency in service on their behalf and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

         The District Forum based on the  evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A8 and Exs.B1 to B3 documents allowed the complaint  in part directing the opposite party no.1  to refund  Rs.3,420/- with  interest at 9% from the date of purchase of ticket till reasliation along with Rs.5000/- towards compensation  and  Rs.2000/- towards costs.  The complaint against opposite party no.2 is dismissed. 

        Aggrieved by the said order opposite parties preferred this appeal.

 

The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the District Forum ought not to have awarded compensation of Rs.5000/-  since the flight was cancelled  due to bad weather conditions  and fog  which are   beyond their control.  More over  the appellant  was always ready and willing  to refund  the ticket  amount  to the complainant  and the same was refused by the respondent/complainant  on unreasonable grounds.  The District  Forum  erred in not considering the affidavit of  one Ms.Srividya Majeti  filed on behalf of the appellants herein. 

We observe from the record that it is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased ticket for his journey  from  Hyderabad to New Delhi  from opposite party no.2 who is an agent of opposite party no.1 scheduled to travel on 14.12.2007 .  It is the complainant’s case that he intended to have Satguru Darshan,   and  also took return train tickets from Beas to Delhi by train  and from  Delhi to Hyderabad  by flight ticket of Spicejet on 18.12.2007. It is the further case of the complainant that on 14.12.2007  when he arrived  at Hyderabad Airport two hours prior to the schedule time  at 9.10 a.m.   he was given a boarding pass wherein  boarding time is mentioned as 10.50 A.M.   and he waited for two hours   at the security check and he was informed that the flight was cancelled due to bad weather conditions . It is the complainant’s contention  that it was only  due to the delayed response of the opposite party that  he could not catch  any other flight to Delhi and missed his Satguru Darshan  which is of  a great sentimental value to him.  It is the case of the opposite parties that it  was only because of poor visibility  of runway and due to   dense fog conditions  that the   flight from Hyderabad to Delhi  was cancelled.    Though the learned counsel for the appellants contended that they were ready and willing to refund the ticket amount but the complainant did not accept the same is not supported by any documentary evidence.   The respondent/complainant was made to wait for almost three hours before the decision of cancellation was made thereby not giving him an opportunity to take  other flight to Delhi and catch connecting   flight to Beas .  Taking into consideration    that his return tickets were also booked and he intended to attend his Guru’s Darshan awarding compensation of Rs.5000/- cannot be said to be excessive. Therefore we see no reason to interfere with the well considered order of the District Forum.  This appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.   Time for compliance four weeks. 

 

                                                                MEMBER

 

                                                                MEMBER

                                                                DT. 18.8.2009

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.