BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Consumer Complaint No. 125 of 2015.
Date of Institution: 23.4.2015.
Date of Decision: 09.08.2019.
Naresh Kumar, director of M/s Chinar Syntax Limited, Sector-13/21 Industrial Area, Bhiwani and Meenu Aggarwal wife of Shri Naresh Kumar, residents of Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.
…..Complainants.
Versus
1. The Managing Director/Chairman, Spice Jet Limited, 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon-122016.
2. Murasoli Maran Towers, 73, MRC Nagar Main Road, MRC Nagar, (registered office), Chennai-600028, Tamil Nadu.
…..Opposite Parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection, Act, 1986.
Before: - Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.
Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.
Present: Shri K. R. Sharma, Advocate for the complainants.
None for the OPs.
ORDER:-
PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT
Brief facts of the complainant’s case are that the OPs had issued E-Tickets to the complainants on 24.1.2014 from Chennai to Hyderabad for 30.3.2014 in Spice Jet SG 912 vide ticket No. QEJQHRS and the said tickets were confirmed by the OPs for 30.3.2014 and the tickets were booked from Bhiwani. It is alleged that the complainants were reached for boarding in the Jet two hours before its flight, but the OPs had taken the flight one hour before the fixed time i.e. at 7.10 am leaving the complainants at the spot. It is further alleged that the said flight was take off illegally and unlawfully and without prior intimation to the complainants and OPs have intentionally and deliberately violated the terms & conditions of the booking of the ticket and harassed the complainants without any rhyme and reason and the OPs have cheated the complainants. It is further alleged that in case of early flight, change of time, change of jet etc., it was the bounden duty of OPs to inform the complainants about that and also to provide residential accommodation and also to arrange for flight in some other jet, but the OPs have failed to do so. It is further alleged that the complainants have requested the OPs many a times to admit the claim of the complainants, but they put off the matter on one pretext or the other and in the end they have flatly refused to the request of the complainants. It is further alleged that a legal notice dated 9.4.2014 was served upon the OPs through Shri K. R. Sharma, Advocate, Bhiwani, but to no effect. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence, this complaint.
2. The OPs on appearance filed contested written statement alleging therein that the complaint is not maintainable in as much as that all the passengers/guests of the answering OPs are governed by the terms of carriage contained in the e-ticket, framed in accordance with Carriage by Air Act, 1972 and notification regarding application of the carriage which is Non-International. It is further alleged that one of the Clauses of the aforesaid terms of carriage clearly disclosed, which is as follows:
“where bad weather or instances beyond Spicejet control has resulted in your flight being cancelled or delayed, Spicejet will try to assist you to get to your destination, but will not be liable in any way for the delay or cancellation.”
Another clause of the said terms of carriage further stipulates that:
“The company reserves to itself the right, without assigning any reason, 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 or otherwise to the passengers or any other person on any ground, whatsoever. The company also reserves to itself the right to refuse to carry any person whom it considers unfit to travel or who in the opinion of the company may constitute risks to the aircraft or to the persons on board.”
Another stipulation in the Terms of Carriage reads as under:
Schedule is subject to change and regulatory authority approvals.
It is further alleged that in view of the above, one the e-ticket which is a concluded contract between the parties, contains the aforesaid stipulations, the complainant herein, having agreed and accepted the same while booking the ticket, is now stopped from raising the alleged dispute and in view thereof, the present complaint is not maintainable. It is further alleged that in view of Provisions contained in Rule 19 of the Chapter XI of the Notification regarding Application of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 to Carriage by air, which is not international. The said Rule 19 is reads as under:
“In the absence of a contract to the contrary, the carrier is not to be liable for damage occasioned by delay in carriage by air of passengers, baggage or cargo.”
It is further alleged that there is a concluded contract/ agreement between the parties regarding exclusion/waiver of any liability of the carrier, in case of delay occasioned in carriage of the passengers and in view of the same, the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs. It is further alleged that the complainant got booked return tickets for travel from Chennai to Hyderabad on 24.1.2014 with travel date as 30th March, 2014. It is further alleged that the said ticket was booked through travel agency Travel Boutique Online. It is further alleged that change is schedule effected by the AAI/ATC, the O.P. had to re-schedule/pre-pone the date of flight. It is further alleged that the actual time of departure i.e. 0710 hours, the flight had to be pre-poned to 0540 hours. It is further alleged that the intimation of the aforesaid change was intimated to the passenger by sending sms on the number mentioned on the e-ticket. It is further alleged that the screen shot of the report is being annexed herewith as Annexure R3 from which it is absolutely clear and apparent that the entire complaint is on a false and baseless pretext of not intimating about the pre-ponement of the flight. It is further alleged that as per the ‘Terms of Carriage’ , which is contract binding upon the parties, the OPs had an unequivocal and unconditional authority to delay/cancel/pre-pone the flight or divert its route due to bad weather or other technical defects or for other reasons beyond the power and control of the OPs, for which the OPs could not be made liable. It is further alleged that in the present case, the flight was pre-poned due to re-schedulement done at the behest of AAI/ATC, which was not in control of OPs. It is further alleged that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint, as the office of OPs situated in Gurgaon/Chennai and mere booking of tickets from internet does not confer jurisdiction upon any court. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant to prove his case placed on record the documents Annexure C1 to C5 and closed the evidence.
4. On the other hand, the OPs have failed to place on record any documentary evidence despite availing several opportunities and the evidence of the OPs was closed vide order dated 20.2.2019.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for the complainant at length and gone through the case file very carefully.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and having gone through the material available on the records, we are of the considered view that the complaint of the complainants deserves dismissal, as they have miserably failed to bring any cogent and convincing evidence to prove deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Admittedly, the complainants have booked E-Ticket for 30.3.2014 for going from Chennai to Hyderabad, but the flight had take off one hour before the scheduled time i.e. 7.10 am, leaving them at the spot. But the OPs have taken the plea that the change in schedule was effected by the AAI/ATC, the O.P. had to re-schedule/pre-pone the actual time of departure i.e. 0710 hours to 0540 hours and the intimation of the aforesaid change was intimated to the complainants by sending sms on the number mentioned on the e-ticket and placed the report on the record. From the perusal of the report, it is clear that the complainants were intimated regarding the change in schedule of the flight on the number provided by them or by their agent at the time of booking of E-ticket. Moreover, in the present case, the flight was pre-poned due to re-schedulement done at the behest of AAI/ATC, which was not in control of OPs. Therefore, the complainants have failed to bring any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and thus the complaint of the complainants is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: - 09.08.2019.
(Saroj Bala Bohra) (Parmod Kumar) (Manjit Singh Naryal)
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani
