Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/506/2014

Sh. Viney Vaid - Complainant(s)

Versus

Spice Jet Airlines - Opp.Party(s)

Satish Chowdhary, Adv.

29 Feb 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	506 of 2014
Date  of  Institution	:	25.09.2014
Date   of   Decision	:	29.02.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Sh.Viney Vaid son of Sh.Shiv Kumar Vaid, resident of Flat No.165, Gh-03, HEWO Apartments, Sector 5, MDC, Panchkula 134114

 

             …..Complainant

Versus

 

1]  Spice Jet Airlines, Domestic Air Port, Air Force Station, Chandigarh, through the Airport Incharge.

 

2]  Spice Jet Airlines through its Managing Director, Registered Office at 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase-4, DLF City, Gurgaon, Haryana 122002

 

3]  Make My Trip through its MD/Manager, Having Office at Tower A, SP Infocity, 243, Udyog Vihar, Phase-1, Gurgaon, Haryana.

  

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Sh.Munish Kumar, Advocate.

 

For Opposite Party(s)   :     Sh.Vishal Madan, Adv. for OP-1 & 2.

                              Sh.Naveen Sharma, Adv. for OP-3.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, 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 15^th June, 2014 from Srinagar to Chandigarh.  It is averred that complainant got the tickets booked in February, 2014 i.e. in advance in order to avoid tension and harassment.  It is also averred that to utter surprise of the complainant, he received a call from OPs 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 is asserted that though the representative of OPs No.1 & 2 assured him 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 is also asserted 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 is pleaded that from New Delhi to Chandigarh, the complainant had to hire taxi on which he spent Rs.6000/-. The complainant also sent a legal notice to the Opposite Parties, but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the above act & conduct of the OPs as deficiency in service.

 

2]       The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 filed joint reply and admitted the factual matrix of the case with regard to bookings made by the complainant as well as cancellation of return flight of the complainant, as alleged.  It is submitted 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 returned journey had also been made.  It is also submitted that the answering OPs are 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 is pleaded 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.  However, in the present case, the answering Opposite Parties had intimated the complainant well in advance and duly made the refund of the amount.  Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

         The Opposite Party No.3 has also filed reply and admitted the factual matrix of the case.  It is submitted that Opposite Party NO.3 merely facilitated the booking of the air tickets in the name of complainant.  Further, submitted that Opposite Party No.3 has 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 is further submitted that Opposite Party No.3 being booking agent duly discharged its limited liability by issuing the confirmed tickets to the complainant.  It is pleaded that the return journey flight was cancelled by the Airline (OPs No.1 & 2) for the reasons best known to them and Opposite Party NO.3 cannot be held liable for the same.  It is also pleaded that the Airlines refunded the amount of unutilized cancelled tickets (Rs.15823/-) and the same has been initiated from Opposite Party No.3 and shall reflect in the complainant’s account.  Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Opposite Party NO.3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record and written arguments.

 

5]       In nutshell the submissions on behalf of the complainant is that he booked four tickets i.e. for himself, his wife and two sons, for 8.6.2014 in advance from Chandigarh to Srinagar and returned tickets were also booked for 15^th June, 2014 from Srinagar to Chandigarh through Opposite Party No.3.  The counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant got his tickets booked in advance only to avoid tension and harassment.  It is the grouse of the complainant that to his utter surprise, he received a call from OPs NO.1 & 2 stating that the return flight booked by the complainant from Srinagar to Chandigarh got cancelled for dated 15.6.2014 and was offered the return flight for some other date, which the complainant was not in a position to accept.  However, it is alleged that the representative of OPs No.1 & 2 assured him that his return tickets would be confirmed by 10^th or 11^th June, 2014, which they never confirmed and the complainant was constantly harassed for such non-confirmation of the return tickets despite assurances. It is submitted further that ultimately left with no alternative, the complainant had to hire services of other airlines i.e. GOAIR and arranged the tickets by paying an amount of Rs.68,284/- for Srinagar to New Delhi.  Further, from New Delhi to Chandigarh the complainant had to spent Rs.6000/- for taxi for the journey by road. 

 

6]       In their defence, OPs No.1 & 2 pleaded that there is no deficiency in service on their part as they provided the due services to the complainant. Claimed further that the complainant was very well intimated 10 days in advance about the cancellation of the flight and they had also refunded the entire amount equivalent to the booking amount for the return journey.  Claimed further that they are 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 under the Rules and Regulations framed by the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), which is a regulatory body of OPs No.1 & 2 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, it states that 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.  Claimed that in the present case, as the OPs No.1 & 2 had timely intimated the complainant and duly made the refund of the amount, thus no liability can be imposed upon them.

 

7]       Counsel for Opposite Party No.3 claimed that Opposite Party No.3 has no liability towards the complainant for any deficiency in service  as it acted as an agent of OPs No.1 & 2 and relied upon Section 230 of Indian Contract Act, 1872, which for the sake of convenience is reproduced as under:-

“Agent cannot personally enforce, nor be bound by, contracts on behalf of principal-In the absence of any contract to that effect, an agent cannot personally enforce contracts entered into by him on behalf of his principal, nor is he personally bound by them. Presumption of contract to contrary.”

 

         Further, it is claimed that Opposite Party No.3 only facilitated the complainant in order to book the air tickets at his end and any deficiency if happened might have occurred at the end of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 and thus, it is prayed that the complaint needs to be dismissed qua Opposite Party No.3.

 

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 15^th 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.

 

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:-

1. 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;
2. 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.
3. 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. 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

29^th February, 2016                                   Sd/-                                                                                                   (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                      Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

          Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

Om                                                                                                                       

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.506 OF 2014

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 29th day of February, 2016

O R D E R                        Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed against Opposite  Parties No.1 & 2 and dismissed qua Opposite Party No.3.                    After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)	(Rajan Dewan)	(Priti Malhotra)
Member	President	Member