CC No.2137.2014

Filed on 18.12.2014

Disposed on.17.02.2017

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BENGALURU– 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 17^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.2137/2014

PRESENT:

Sri.  H.S.RAMAKRISHNA B.Sc., LL.B.

        PRESIDENT

             Smt.L.MAMATHA, B.A., (Law), LL.B.

                      MEMBER

                                      V/S

ORDER

BY SRI.H.S.RAMAKRISHNA, PRESIDENT

1. This Complaint was filed by the Complainants on 18.12.2014 U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and praying to pass an Order directing the Opposite Parties to pay Transportation of Rs.63,179/-, to pay Food, stay, miscellaneous expenses of Rs.12,704/-, to pay Compensation for deficiency in service of Rs.30,000/-, to pay Legal expenses of Rs.20,000/- and other reliefs. 

2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under:-

In the Complaint, the Complainants allege that on 22^nd Afternoon 2:30 they arrived at the male airport Boarding flight SG 3092.  After cross-checking the tickets the station manager told PNR (N6WT7Z) ticket is confirmed and Ticket with PNR (E8TMVT) is not confirmed Passenger Name 1) Sunita Mudake and Soham Mudake they cannot board the flight. Because as per the spice jet data base was not showing the confirmation of PNR (E8TMVT).  The Complainant showed the confirmed tickets of wife and son but the station Manager did not allow boarding the flight and he ask the Complainant to go to spice jet office talk to the Authority, without spending much time the Complainant went to the Opposite Party Office.  There also he got the same reply they cannot help and asked to call and check with Customer Care of India.  Then the Complainant approached Indian Embassy.  They called up the spice jet head office and ask them to give in written the reason for not allowing the passenger to board the plane.  So the spice jet people gave a written statement on the ticket and informed the Complainant to go to India and claim the amount.  Due to this reason, the Complainant has to say in Male on 23^rd, 24^th and 25^th of November and he has to rebook the tickets for the Passengers.  After that on 25^th November the Complainant got a call from Head Office Haryana to forward confirmed ticket with PNR (E8TMVT).  After that the Complainant on sending mails from 26^th November till 12^th December and also called up the Customer care.  But they told they are working on the case CR127333/2014.   After that he tried to postpone his ticket with PNR(N6WT7Z) for 31^st December.  After dialing for customer care number.  But no reply for the mail.  Hence this complaint. 

3. In response to the notice, the Opposite Parties put their appearance through their counsel and filed their common version.  In the version pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable.  The complaint is abuse and misuse of the process of law.  The complaint is not maintainable as much as there was no intentional or deliberate act by or on behalf of the Opposite Parties, which can be amounted to causing deficiency in service, as alleged by the Complainant.  The Complainant has alleged that she had changed the itinerary of the PNR No.E8TMVT from 18^th October, 2014 to 22^nd November, 2014, the same did not reflect in the systems of Opposite Parties, on account which, the Complainant could not undertake journey from Male to Cochin.  The said error is a system generated error and in view of he said error, the names of the passengers, who were shown in the said PNR did not reflect.  In view of the aforesaid, the staff at Male airport had no option, but to refuse the passengers from boarding the plane.  It is further submitted that after the complaints of the Complainant, the Staff of the Opposite Parties investigated the matter and it was found that the error was system generated error and had no role of any staff.  It is submitted that a sum of Rs.12,968/-, as such, was remitted back to the account, from where, the amount was remitted for purchase of the tickets.  Since the names of the passengers were not reflected in the system and it was purely an error of system and not error of any human or staff of the Opposite Parties not negligence or deficiency in any service can be attributed to or upon the Opposite Parties.  In view of the same, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.  The present complaint is liable to be dismissed in as much as the present complaint is devoid of merits and is without any cause of action.  The compensation claimed is baseless, exorbitant and has no connection or nexus, with any alleged deficiency or negligence in services.  The present complaint is liable to be dismissed as much as Courts at Bangalore have no Territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. The Complainants were scheduled to travel from Male to Cochin.  The cause of action, if any arose in Male or in Cochin.  The registered office of the Opposite Parties is in Chennai and Corporate Office is in Gurgaon.  Mere place of residence of the Complainant does not decide territorial Jurisdiction for entertaining the complaint. Though local airport is there in Bangalore and the Opposite Parties has local office here, but no cause of action has arisen in Bangalore.  The Complainant changed the Itinerary of the PNR No.E8TMVT from 18^th October, 2014 to 22^nd November 2014.   Further the same did not reflect in the systems of Opposite Parties on account which, the Complainant could not undertake journey from Male to Cochin. The said error is a system generated error and in view of eh said error, the names of the passengers, who were shown in the said PNR did not reflect.  In view of the aforesaid, the staff at Male airport had no option, but to refuse the passengers from boarding the plane.  Hence, prays to dismiss the complaint.

4.  On behalf of the Complainants, the affidavit of one Sri.Somnath Bashetti has been filed. On behalf of the Opposite Parties, the affidavit of one Sri.Vijay Roy has been filed.  Heard the arguments of both parties.  

5.      The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether this Forum has got Territorial Jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
2. Whether the Complainants have proves the alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties ?
3. If so, to what relief the Complainants are entitled?

6.     Our findings on the above points are:-

                POINT (1):-Affirmative

                POINT (2):-Affirmative

                POINT (3):-As per the final Order

REASONS

7.  POINT NO.1:- The learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties argued that this Forum has no territorial Jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. The Complainants were scheduled to travel from Male to Cochin.  The cause of action, if any arose in Male or in Cochin.  The registered office of the Opposite Parties is in Chennai and Corporate Office is in Gurgaon.  Mere place of residence of the Complainants does not decide territorial Jurisdiction for entertaining the complaint. Hence, this Forum has no territorial Jurisdiction; on this ground allow this complaint is liable to be dismissed.   

8. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Complainant argued that this Forum has got territorial Jurisdiction to entertain this complaint since M/s Spice Jet Limited is having Branch Office in Bangalore.  The Air tickets were booked through online in Bangalore want of cause of action arisen in Bangalore, thereby this Forum have got Territorial Jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.

9. With this argument, on perusal of record, no doubt as argued by the learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties.  The Complainants booked air Ticket to travel from Male to Cochin and the Head Office of Spice Jet is at Gurgoan. But that itself will not take away the Jurisdiction of this Forum since the Spice Jet is having Branch Office at Bangalore and also the Complainants booked the Air ticket through online from Bangalore, thereby, the cause of action will arises in Bangalore.  Therefore, this Forum has got Jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  Section 11(2)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, the cause of action only or in part arises so the part of cause of action arises in dispute thereby this Forum has got Jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  Hence, we answer point No.1 is accordingly. 

10. It is the case of the Complainants on 22^nd Afternoon 2:30 they arrived at the male airport Boarding flight SG 3092 with the family.  After cross-checking the tickets the station Manager told PNR (N6WT7Z) ticket is confirmed and Ticket with PNR (E8TMVT) is not confirmed Passenger Name 1) Sunita Mudake and Soham Mudake they cannot board the flight. As per the spice jet data base was not showing the confirmation of PNR (E8TMVT).  The Complainant showed the confirmed tickets of wife and son but the station Manager did not allow boarding the flight, then the Complainants contacted the Spice Jet Office they also replied the same they cannot help and asked to call and check with Customer Care of India.  Then the Complainant approached the Indian Embassy.  They called up the spice jet head office and ask them to give in written the reason for not allowing the passenger to board the plane.  The spice jet people gave a written statement on the ticket and informed the Complainant to go to India and claim the amount.  Due to this reason, the Complainants have to say in Male on 23^rd, 24^th and 25^th of November and they have to rebook the tickets for the Passengers Sunita Sriram Maduke and Sriram Mallikarjun Maduke.  In order to substantiate this, Authorized Representative of Complainant Sri.Somnath Bashetti, in his sworn testimony, reiterated the same and produced the Air ticket.  By looking into this, the Complainants booked the tickets to fly from Male to Cochin on 22^nd 2014 at 2:45 p.m. Spice Jet the ticket was booked at 24^th Mary 2014 and this ticket is confirmed PNR No.E8TMVT.  Even to this, the Complainants having confirmed tickets to travel from Male to Cochin on 22^nd November 2014 but when they came to the Male Airport in order to fly Cochin the Station Manager informed PNR No.N6WT7Z is confirmed and ticket with PNR No.E8TMVT is not confirmed.  But it is not so as looking into this tickets produced by the Complainants, even though the Complainants are having confirmed the tickets but they were denied the board flight on 22.11.2014.

11. The defence of the Opposite Parties is that the Complainants had changed the itinerary of the PNR No.E8TMVT from 18^th October, 2014 to 22^nd November, 2014, the same did not reflect in the systems of Opposite Parties, on account of which, the Complainants could not undertake journey from Male to Cochin.  The said error is a system generated error and in view of the said error, the names of the passengers, who were shown in the said PNR did not reflect.  In view of the aforesaid, the staff at Male airport had no option, but to refuse the passengers from boarding the plane, the Opposite Parties investigated the matter and it was found that the error was system generated error and had no role of any staff a sum of Rs.12,968/-, as such, was remitted back to the account, from where, the amount was remitted for purchase of the tickets in question.  In support of this defence, Sri.Vijay Roy, working as Legal Manager of Spice Jet, in his sworn testimony, he reiterated the same.  Except the interested version of the Opposite Parties, the Opposite Parties have not placed any supporting evidence.  On the other hand, even in their version itself they clearly admitting that the Complainant change the itinerary from 18^th October, 2014 to 22^nd November 2014, the same was not reflect in the systems. The said error is a system generated error.  There is an error on the part of the Opposite Parties, but it is not the error of the staff but it is only system generated error.  In that event, the system generated error can be possible only the feeding of the system is wrongly feedback so this feeding of the feedback is given by the staff and if the staff were alert while issuing the tickets this error could not be crept and there will be no system generated also thereby this error is due to the negligence act of this staff of the Opposite Parties.  Hence, this point is held in the Affirmative.

12. POINT NO.2:- In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The Complaint is partly allowed holding that there is deficiency of service by the Opposite Party No.1 & 2.

The Opposite Party No.1 & 2 are directed to refund a sum of Rs.27,392/- to the Complainants. 

The Opposite Party No.1 & 2 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony to the Complainants.

The Opposite Party No.1 & 2 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards costs.

The Opposite Party No.1 & 2 are directed to pay the aforesaid amount within 30 days from the date of this Order.  Failing which a sum of Rs.27,392/- shall carry interest at 18% p.a from the date of this Order, till the date of repayment.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this, 17^th day of February 2017)

            MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT 

LIST OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS

 Witness examined on behalf of the Complainants:

1. Sri.Somnath Bashetti, the Authorized Representative of the Complainant has filed his affidavit.

 List of documents filed by the Complainants:

1. Air Tickets
2. Emails correspondences  

Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

1. Sri.Vijay Roy, Legal Manager of the Opposite Parties has filed his affidavit.

  List of documents filed by the Opposite Party:

                                    -Nil-

MEMBER                                                                                 PRESIDENT