STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                    U.T., CHANDIGARH 

                                    (Additional Bench)

1.   Vipan Sharma s/o Late Sh.B.A.Sharma,
2.   Sangina Sharma w/o Sh.Vipan Sharma,
3.   Vansh Vashisht s/o Sh.Vipan Sharma,

  All residents of H.No.155, Sector 51-A, Chandigarh PIN- 160047                                                                              .  Appellants.                                                                                           Versus

1.            SpiceJet Ltd., 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase IV, Gurgaon (now                 Gurugram) Pin code;122016 Haryana, India through its       Directors/Authorized Signatory

2.             Goibibo.com. Ibibo Group,  5th Floor, Good Earth City                          Centre,Sector-50,Gurgaon(NowGurugram)Pin Code:                      122018, Haryana, India, through its  Directors/Authorized                    signatory

                                                                           ..... Respondents

Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against order dated 26.10.2022 passed by       District       Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.463/2020.

BEFORE:       MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                       Mr.PREETINDER SINGH,MEMBER

For the appellants:   Sh.Arjun Kundra, Advocate  

For  respondents:     Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj,Advocate  for respondent No.1

                                  None for respondent No.2

 PER PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

                   This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.10.2022, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh    (hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it dismissed the complaint bearing No.CC/463/2020,being without any merit.

2.             Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was case of the complainants/appellants that   they in order to visit the Holy City of Shirdi for religious purpose, booked   air-tickets of Opposite Party No.1 Airlines, through Opposite Party.2,for journey   from Delhi to Shirdi for 27.12.2019 and  for return journey  from Shirdi to Delhi on 28.12.2019, by making payment of Rs.16,600/- and Rs.14,649/- respectively and the same were confirmed by Opposite Party No.1 (Annexure C-2 & C-6). It is stated that the complainants had also made booking of Shatabdi Train from Chandigarh to Delhi for 27.12.2019, Hotel Stay in Shirdi for one night at Hotel Temple Tree for 27/28.12.2019 and booking for return journey from Delhi to Chandigarh via Volvo Bus for 28.12.2019. However, on reaching Delhi Airport well in time, after getting check-in when they were   standing in the queue with boarding passes in hand to board the plane, suddenly the officials of Opposite Party No.1 Airlines closed the boarding gates and informed the complainants that their flight from Delhi to Shirdi has been cancelled.  However, no reason was given   for cancellation of the flight.  Opposite Party No.1 neither made any alternative arrangement/flight to reach Shirdi, nor offered any hotel/accommodation for stay in Delhi nor made any arrangement for return journey of complainants to Chandigarh.  Having no option, the complainants were forced to return to Chandigarh and as such, they had to purchase on the  spot fresh air tickets in emergency of Air Asia by paying an amount of Rs.17,682/- (Annexure C-4) for Delhi to Chandigarh flight.   When  complainants agitated the matter with the Opposite parties, they raised a false ground that the flight was cancelled due to bad weather.  The complainants then sent notice through email to the OP airline on 21.1.2020  to look into their grievance and harassment suffered by them but Opposite Party NO.1 instead of apologizing   replied that they do not have any provision to alternative flight or hotel accommodation and compensation to the passengers in this regard. It is further stated that even the Opposite party No.1 failed to provide the full refund of the air tickets  which is stated to be violative against the policy of the Government of India. Hence, alleging deficiency in service  and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite parties due to which  the complainants have to suffer financial loss, mental agony and physical harassment, a consumer complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission. 

 3.                    Pursuant to issuance of notice of the complaint, both the opposite parties contested the complaint before the Ld. Lower Commission.  Opposite Party No.1 in its reply admitted the  factual matrix of the case but  stated that due to “Bad Weather” at Shirdi, the Opposite Party  was constrained to cancel the flight No.SG-946 from Delhi to Shirdi and accordingly  as per the directions of Air Traffic Control(ATC), the  flight in question was  cancelled and intimation about the said cancellation was sent to the complainants by way of e-mail and SMS on their email id and mobile number on 27.12.2019 at 12.38 hours. According to the Opposite Party,  the complainants were given an option to seek full refund or get an alternate flight by contacting the reservation helpline, but the complainants did not seek the assistance of Opposite Party  for availing alternate flight and as such, full refund of Rs.16,660/- was made on 9.1.2020 and Rs.399/-  were remitted to the complainants on 16.1.2020  through travel agent i.e. OP No.2.  It is also submitted that the complainants were ‘No Show’ for the next day’s flight from Shirdi to Delhi and though Opposite Party No.1 has an unequivocal  right to forfeit the said amount towards return ticket, yet as a goodwill gesture,  the entire return ticket amount of Rs.14,649/- was refunded to the complainants through Opposite Party  No.2 i.e. their travel agent on 28.12.2019 itself.  It is further stated that no damages, whatsoever, were suffered by the complainant and even otherwise as ‘Terms of Carriage’ which is a contract binding upon the parties, the Opposite Party had an unequivocal and unconditional authority to delay/cancel/pre-pone or divert the flight due to bad weather or other technical defects or for the other reasons beyond its control, for which it could not be made liable.  It is further stated that all airlines are governed by the Rules and Regulations framed by the Director General of Civil Aviation and as per paras 1.4 and 1.5 of the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) issued by the DGCA, when delay/cancellation of flight is on account of unforeseen circumstances and the reasons, which are beyond the power and control of the airlines, the operating airline’s liability for compensation does not arise.  It is further stated  that since the flight in question was cancelled due to “Bad Weather at Shirdi” and the Opposite Parties have already refunded the entire ticket amount along with  amount of return flight, which was neither cancelled nor boarded, there is neither any deficiency nor any negligence on the part of the answering opposite party and a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                   Opposite Party No.2 in its reply   while admitting the factual matrix of the case  stated that the sole grievance of the complainants is against Opposite Party No.1.  It  was stated  that the  answering OP had duly issued the desired confirmed flight bookings on the desired date to the complainants and after the issuance of the confirmed flight bookings, the answering OP was discharged of its obligations qua the bookings and service provider. It was further stated   that the complainants did not disclose that the answering OP has duly processed the complete refund amounting to Rs.31,589/- on 3.1.2020 for both the onwards and return sector flight bookings.  It is stated that answering OP has duly performed all its duties by issuing the concerned flight bookings and by further processing the refund at the instance of cancellation by Opposite Pary No.1,  as the refunds are processed as per the airline fare rules and cancellation policy.  It was further stated that no cause of action arose qua the answering Opposite Party and  the complainants have failed to make out any case against the answering Opposite Party for the alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                  On appraisal of the complaint,  evidence adduced on record and after  hearing Counsel for the parties,  Ld. Lower Commission dismissed the  complaint of the appellants/ Complainants, being without any merit.

6.                 Dissatisfied with  the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the instant Appeal  has been filed by the Appellants/Complainants for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 26.10.202 and further to allow the consumer complaint with costs. 

7.                     We have heard Counsel for the parties,  and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.

 8.                 The main ground, in the appeal, urged by the appellants is that  there is not a single document produced  on record by the airline that the flight was cancelled due to bad weather in Delhi but the Ld. Lower Commission without even considering the documents on record passed the impugned order.  It is contended that the staff of the airline neither   informed  in advance about the cancellation of the flight, nor, gave any reason nor explained that why the flight was cancelled when the appellants family was almost about to enter the plane. The respondent No.1 did not make any alternative arrangement to reach Shirdi, nor any hotel/accommodation for stay in Delhi was provided. Thus, respondent No.1 airline had not taken any concrete steps to take care of the passengers of their cancelled flight and as such the appellants have to suffer immense mental agony, physical harassment and monetary loss. 

9.                  At the time of arguments, the learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that as the respondents have not placed on record any document with regard to bad weather due to which the flight in question was cancelled on 27.12.2019, he may be given time to produce some documents/certificate from the concerned authorities/ATC with regard to weather on 27.12.2019 for rebutting the contention of the respondents. On request, sufficient time was granted to obtain the information.  Ultimately, Counsel for the appellants placed on record  information sought through RTI, which is as under ;

The above information placed on record by the appellants does not speak about the status of weather forecast on 27.12.2019. Arrival and departures of flights from Delhi or Shirdi Airport on 27.12.2019 does not support the case of the appellants that there was no bad weather on that date. In reply to the contention of Counsel for the appellants, it was submitted by Counsel for the respondents that bad weather does not happen in advance and as such no advance intimation of the same could have been given to the appellants and other passengers.  It is further submitted that as soon as the respondents came to know about bad weather at Shirdi and consequent cancellation of the flight by the ATC, the passengers including the appellants were informed and they were offered the next available flight, which was on the next day, but the appellants did not avail the said facility. It was further submitted that respondent NO.1 is a low cost airline and does not provide any arrangement for boarding and lodging. As the appellants did not avail the offer of next flight, the entire ticket charges were refunded to them. 

 10.                The Ld. Lower Commission rightly observed that the  claim of the appellants/ complainants that their flight from Delhi to Shirdi scheduled for 27.12.2019 through OP Airlines was cancelled without any reason is not justified.  It further observed that the respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1 has rightly cancelled the flight in question due to “Bad Weather” at Shirdi as well as on  the  directions of ATC in this regard.  It was further observed that   as the reason for cancellation of the flight in question was beyond the power and control of the Airline, no deficiency in service is made out against OP Airline. 

 11.              On the aspect of grant of compensation, the Ld. Lower Commission rightly observed that  as per Clause 1.4 and 1.5 of Civil Aviation Requirements issued by DGCA, the airline is not liable to pay compensation in respect of cancellations and delays which are attributable to ATC (Air Traffic Control), meteorological conditions, unexpected flight safety shortcomings, operational and technical reasons etc. or any other causes that are beyond the control of the airline but which effect their ability to operate flights on schedule. Similar is the position in the present case, therefore, the complainants/appellants  are not entitled to any compensation.

 12.                  Counsel for the appellants could not show anything to the contrary which may persuade us to interfere in the order.   We find  that no case is  made out to interfere in the order, under challenge.

 13.                  For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed,   with no order as to costs. The order of the Ld. Lower Commission is upheld.

 14.                 Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

15.                     The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.