By Sri. K. Mohammed Ali, President,
Facts in brief:-
1. The complainant, a practicing lawyer at Nilambur and Manjeri bar approached this forum stating that he had booked Flight Ticket to Delhi, for a a discussion with some Senior counsels' of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, to be held on 25-08-2013 at 8 PM and opposite party No.2 promised and offered better service and promptness if he travels with the flight of opposite party No.1. Since the flight was delayed he cannot reach the destination in time, causing much inconvenience, monetary loss and mental agony. Hence this complaint.
2. The opposite party No.1 is vehemently resisting the complaint, mainly on the ground that just before the departure of the flight, the Air Mechanic Engineer while checking the air worthiness, found that there is some problem in the Engine of the air craft which could not be repaired and defects could not be rectified. So opposite party No.1 has to arrange a new air craft. So the opposite party No.1 had to re-route the flight. So delay was not intentional and so there is no deficiency.
3. The moot question that arises for our analysis is as follows:-
(i) Whether the opposite parties are deficient in service.
(ii) Relief if any.
4. Point No.(i) & (ii):-
Opposite party No.1 filed detailed version after a prolonged period of eight months resulting a payment of cost of Rs.750/- to the complainant. Opposite party No.2 never filed any version at all. Both opposite parties failed to submit counter affidavit also.
5. In order to substantiate the claim of the complainant, he has produced and marked the documents as Ext.A1 to A4, which includes the passenger information issued by opposite party No.1, Boarding Pass by opposite party No.1 travel itinerary two in number issued by opposite party No.1, and these documents categorically proves that the complainant was a Passenger in Airline C442M C and MDNJ 76 on 25th August, 2013. The opposite party No.1 has admitted that there was delay and it was due to the defects noticed in the Engine of the Aircraft resulting in arranging a new aircraft, Boeing 737.
6. The point to be decided in this case seems to be very simple. What ever may be the reason for delay, who will compensate the loss sustained by the complainant? In connection with a case discussion,he got appointments to meet the Senior Lawyer of the Supreme Court. But it was spoiled. Frustrated he returned to his native place. He has chosen the opposite party No.1, Spice Jet, to travel because he was promised the efficiency, good will promptness and better service, by opposite party No.2, the agency information.
7. Apart from submitting a lengthy version with flowery language, the opposite party has not produced any documents before the forum to establish their contentions about Engine defects of the Aircraft, re-routing of the flight, etc. Opposite party No.2 never bothered about filing version and affidavit.
8. This Forum feels that clinging upon hyper technicalities, the intention and purpose of the beneficiary legislation of the Consumer Protection Act shall not be suppressed. The full cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of this Forum.
9. On analysing the evidences we came to the conclusion that opposite parties are deficient in service. The complainant is eligible for a reasonable compensation. So in the interest of justice we are passing the following order.
10. The opposite party No.1 and 2, shall jointly and severally pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) tot he complainant, as compensation for his monetary loss, loss of time, mental agony and inconvenience within one month of the receipt of the copy of this order. No order as to costs.
Dated this 30th day of June, 2015.
K. MOHAMMED ALI, PRESIDENT
R. K. MADANAVALLY, MEMBER
MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A4
Ext.A1 : Photo copy of the Flight Ticket from Kozhikkode to Delhi.
Ext.A2 : Boarding Pass dated, 25-08-2013
Ext.A3 : Travel Itinerary from Delhi to Cochin.
Ext.A4 : Photo copy of the Travel Itinerary from Calicut to Chennai.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil
K. MOHAMMED ALI, PRESIDENT
R. K. MADANAVALLY, MEMBER
MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
