Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/880/2017

Sh. Prabhjot Singh Dhillon - Complainant(s)

Versus

Spice Jet Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Amarbir Dhaliwal Adv.

28 Nov 2018

ORDER

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

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	880 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	14.11.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	28.11.2018

 

 

 

 

Sh.Prabhajot Singh Dhillon s/o Sh.Hardeep Singh, R/o H.No.467, Ward No.2, Mallan Colony, Near IOC Petrol Pump, Gidderbaha, Distt. Shri Muktsar Sahib.   

 

             ……..Complainant

Versus

 

1]  Spice Jet Ltd., Regd. Office -319, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon 122016, Haryana, India

 

2]  Cleartrip.com Regd. Office 312-316, 3^rd Floor, Vipul Agora Bldg., next to Sahara Mall, M.G.Road, Gurgaon 122002 India.

 

………. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN            PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA        MEMBER

            SH.RAVINDER SINGH         MEMBER

 

Argued By: Sh.Amardeep Dhaliwal, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.Amandeep Vashisht, Adv. for OP No.1

Sh.Pawandeep Singh, Adv. for OP No.2.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

         The case of the complainant, in brief is that, he purchased air-tickets for himself from Air India amounting to Rs.92,456/-, which was issued for Flight No.AI-121 for the journey from New Delhi, India on 1.8.2017 at 1:35 PM arriving at Frankfurt, Germany and Flight No.AI-120 for the return journey from Germany to India on 11.8.2017 (Ann.C-1). The complainant also purchased one-way air-ticket of OP No.1 for Flight No.SG-2834 departing from Chandigarh on 1.8.2017 at 8:40 AM and arriving at New Delhi on 1.8.2017 at 9:35 AM.

         It is averred that the complainant boarded the Flight No.SG-2834 at Chandigarh well in time, but it did not take off for about 3 hours despite sitting in the plane and on enquiry, it was told that the flight could not take off because of some technical glitch with the airport authorities.  It is also averred that it was clearly visible from the Windows of the plane that continues repair works were being carried out on the left engine of the aeroplane. Finally, the complainant stepped out of the aeroplane along with other passengers, received back his luggage but by that time his connecting flight from New Delhi to Frankfurt, Germany had already departed. Then, the complainant had to travel to New Delhi via road and to purchase new air ticket for his journey to Frankfurt, Germany at the cost of Rs.44,668/- of Lufthansa Airlines (Ann.C-4). It is submitted that due to negligent and deficient act of the OPs the entire travel Plan of the complainant was spoiled as his family members travelling with him had already reached Germany while he was still stuck in India.  Further, the complainant had to purchase a new air ticket at the cost of Rs.32,751/- for his return journey to New Delhi, India for 11.8.2017, as his original return ticket was cancelled by airlines as he did not board their flight on 1.8.2017 (Ann.C-5). The complainant also sent legal notice to the OPs, but they did not pay any heed.  Hence, this complaint. 

 

2]       The Opposite Party No.1 has filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the flight in question on 1.8.2017 was got delayed due to operational and technical reasons, which were beyond the power and control of Opposite Party No.1.  It is submitted that due to technical snag in the aircraft, the same was not in a condition to fly and the Aircraft Maintenance Engineers tried their best to rectify the snag, which was successfully diagnosed.  It is also submitted that since the snag had developed/detected after the flight was boarded and the flight was scheduled to fly on early morning of 1.8.2017, it was not possible for the Opposite Party to take off the flight without correcting the fault. 

         It is further submitted that safety of the passengers is more important than punctuality. The snag was reported after boarding only which could be rectified only by the aircraft maintenance engineers, who are duly approved and licencsed/certified by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), a Central Government regulatory body for Civil Aviation under the Ministry of Civil Aviation and further, the flight commanding pilot per the prescribed format of DGCA, has to record all the technical records of the flights in a day to day basis, before proceeding any flight journey. The copy of work order carried out by aircraft maintenance engineer, to rectify the technical snag and signed copy of aircraft technical log sector record by commanding pilot, about clearing the defect detected in the aircraft is annexed as Ann.R-2. The OP,s technical staff and material were brought from New Delhi and consequently, the flight had to be delayed for 440 minutes despite best efforts by the OPs.  It is submitted that the said postponement of the flight was told to all the passengers well in advance and Opposite Party in the interest of safety of all passengers, rectified all the technical defects found, due to which flight got delayed.  It is submitted that the information regarding the postponement of the flight was given to the complainant by sending text message on the number mentioned in the PNR MFR2KE.  The copy of text sms is annexed as Ann.R-3.  It is submitted that in fact the complainant after getting the said information either left the Airport or did not intentionally board the flight and after defaulting himself, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant with a malafide intention to extract money from the Opposite Party.  It is further submitted that the scheduled time of the flight was 08:40 AM on 01.08.2017 and the flight actually took off at 16:00 Hours.  The staff of the Opposite Party NO.1, who was present at Airport, took the complainant and all other passengers to the Waiting Area.  Thereafter, when the fault was corrected by the Engineers, repeated requests through announcements were made by the Opposite Party NO.1 to board the flight.  It is submitted that after making several announcements, Gate No Show of the complainant was declared and announced by the ground staff of the answering Opposite Party.  It is submitted that in case of a Gate-no Show, the name of the passenger is repeatedly announced inside the Airport premises and the staff of the concerned airline also individually enquires about the said passenger from other passengers.  In addition to this, the said passenger is also contacted on the given mobile number. In this case also, the complainant was contacted over the mobile number given by him; however, there was no response from the complainant.  Had the complainant been present at the Airport on the aforesaid date and time or had he been attentive, on being announced his name as a Gate-no Show passenger, he would have definitely approached the ground staff of answering Opposite Party. It is averred that the complainant due to his own default missed the flight and he did not come at the Gate of Spice Jet counter at all for boarding the flight.  It is also averred that the contention of the complainant that the said flight did not take off is totally false and frivolous and misconceived and therefore, the present complaint is liable to be rejected out rightly. It is also stated that the booking amount of the ticket was Rs.3048/- and Opposite Party No.1 is ready to refund the same to the account from which the tickets has been booked.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

         The Opposite Party NO.2/Cleartrip Private Limited has also filed reply stating therein that the booking was done as per the parameters chosen and entered by the complainant and the complainant was provided with e-ticket effectively. It is also stated that Opposite Party No.2 cannot be held responsible for any act of omission or commission by Opposite Party No.1 i.e. SpiceJet Airline.  

 

3]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

 

5]       The thorough perusal/consideration of the pleadings/submissions of the complainant and the evidence brought forward by Opposite Party No.1 with special reference to Ann.R-2, establish that the Flight No.SG-2834 booked by the complainant for the route Chandigarh to New Delhi, got delayed due to the operational and technical reasons beyond the power and control of Opposite Party NO.1-SpieceJet.  

 

6]       It has duly been admitted by Opposite Party No.1 that some technical snag had developed/detected after the flight was boarded, which was scheduled for early morning on 1.8.2017, but due to the sudden snag occurred in the aircraft, it was not possible for Opposite Party No.1 to take off the flight without mending the fault.  We are of the opinion that the safety of the passengers life is paramount and the Opposite Party No.1 in the given circumstances had acted with due prudence and thus cannot be made liable for any alleged deficiency in service on that account. 

 

7]       We can well understand the difficulty undergone by the complainant in missing the connecting flight due to sudden snag in the aircraft. Although the complainant under the compelled circumstances arranged for another ticket and managed his visit to Frankfurt, Germany by boarding another flight, but the Opposite Party NO.1 cannot be burdened with refund of the amount spent by the complainant on another flight to facilitate his journey. 

 

8]       Definitely, at the same time, we cannot ignore the liability of Opposite Party No.1 to reimburse the ticket amount to the complainant, which remained unutilized as the complainant had not boarded the rescheduled flight of Opposite Party No.1 after the rectification of snag due to paucity of time. 

 

9]       Even as per the Terms of Carriage, so placed on record by Opposite Party NO.1 as Annexure R-1, it was the liability of Opposite Party No.1 (Provision No.17 of Terms of Carriage) to refund the booking amount of the ticket in the given eventuality, which they apparently failed to refund. However, in reply  to the present complaint, the Opposite Party No.1 has admitted to refund the said amount, which otherwise it was under obligation to refund. Therefore, on this account, the Opposite Party No.1 is held liable for being deficient in rendering proper service towards the complainant. Also for thrusting present litigation on the complainant by not refunding the due amount as well for causing harassment on that account, the Opposite Party No.1 is liable to compensate the complainant by paying compensatory cost as well as litigation expenses besides their liability to refund the due air-fare.  

 

10]      For the proved deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1, the present complaint is allowed against the Opposite Party No.1 with following directions:-

1. To refund the unutilized air ticket amount of Rs.3298/- to the complainant;
2. To pay an amount of Rs.7,000/- as compensation for causing harassment & mental agony to the complainant;
3. To pay an amount of Rs.5000/- towards litigation expenses.

 

         This order be complied with by the OP within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the Opposite Party No.1 shall be liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.5000/- apart from the above relief. 

 

11]      However, the complaint qua Opposite Party No.2 stands dismissed.

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

Announced

28^th November, 2018                                                               Sd/-

                                                                   (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER