CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII

DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO.CC/216/17

          Date of Institution:-    27.04.2017

          Order Reserved on:- 24.07.2024

                       Date of Decision:-      12.11.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

LalitKapoor

S/o Late Sh. Amir Chand

R/o C/o Plot No-4, Skyline,

Medi Point LibasPur Road,

SamayPurBadli

Near Labour Chowk, Delhi - 110042

.….. Complainant

VERSUS

1. Spice Jet Ltd.

Near Steel Gate Bus Stop

Terminal-1, Indira Gandhi International Airport,

New Delhi – 110037

2. The Managing Director

          Spicejet Ltd.

        319, UdyogVihar

      Gurgaon – 122016 HR

.…..Opposite Parties

Suresh Kumar Gupta, President

1. The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations that on 07.03.2015,he has booked two air tickets i.e. one for himself and other for his friendMohd. Rashid for traveling on 27.04.2015 from Delhi to Kathmandu and paid a sum of Rs.8,384/-. The air ticket of Mohd. Rashid was got cancelled due to marriage of his nephew. On the date of flight, he reached at airport on time and shocked to learn at the counter that flight has been cancelled. The OP has never informed him about the cancellation. He came back by taxi. He had made arrangements at Kathmandu for stay. He has requested for the refund of full air fare and even sent letters to refund Rs.6042/- but in vain. There is deficiency of service on the part of OP. Hence, this complaint.

2. The OP has filed the reply to the effect that complaint is not maintainable as OP is governed by the terms of carriage framed in accordance with carriage by Air Act, 1972 and the notification regarding application of carriage which is not intentional. The clauses say that where bad weather or instances beyond Spice jet control has resulted in the flight being cancelled/delayed, spice jet will try to assist the passenger to get to the destination but will not be liable for delay or cancellation.“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.”

3. The complainant has agreed to the terms and conditions printed on the e-ticket thus estopped from raising any dispute.
4. Further, the rule 19 of the chapter 11 of the notification regarding application of carriage by Air Act, 1972 to carriage by air which says that in the absence of contract to the contrary, the carrier is not liable for damage occasioned by delay in carriage by air of passengers, baggage or cargo. New PNR No.YEMEUH was generated after the cancellation of ticket of Mohd. Rashid and part amount of Rs.2342/- was refunded on account of cancellation of ticket of Mohd. Rashid in May, 2015. The massive earthquake hit Nepal during the intervening night of 25/26.04.2015 thereby all the domestic operations were suspended as Nepal Airport was used only for relief operations. This communication was made available to OP at the last moment as such it was not possible to communicate with the passengers. Kathmandu Airport was not available for normal flight operation, OP has to cancel the flight. The reasons were beyond the control of OP. The complainant is obliged to give his complete contact details and particulars to airline to enable airline to get in touch with the passenger and failure on the part of passenger to do so will debar him for claiming any compensation. The OP has already refunded a sum of Rs.6042/- to the complainant on 05.06.2017. The delay has occasioned to remit the amount on account of the fact that PNR numbers were split after cancellation of ticket. No cause of action survives after refund of the amount. The compensation has no nexus with the cancellation of flight. No damage has been suffered by the complainant. The demand of Rs.15 lakh as compensation on account of alleged loss, harassment and damage etc. has no nexus with the cancellation of flight. Moreover, complainant has not filed any document to show that he has sustained damages to the extent of Rs.15 lakh. The complaint is not maintainable and accordingly same is dismissed.
5. The complainanthas filed the rejoinder wherein he has admitted that OP has returned a sum of Rs.6042/- to him after filing of this complaint. The complainant has denied the averments of the written statement.

6. The parties were directed to lead the evidence.

7. The complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence wherein he has corroborated the version of complaint and placed reliance on the documents.

8. The OP has filed the affidavit of Sh. Vijay Roy, in evidence wherein he has corroborated the version of written statement.

9. We have heardthe AR of the OP as no one has tuned up on behalf of the complainant and perused the entire material on record.

10. The booking of ticket by the complainant for himself and for his friend and thereafter cancellation of ticket of his friend is not in dispute.

11. The complainant has booked the ticket for the flight from Delhi to Kathmandu for 27.04.2015. This fact is admitted by the OP.

12. It is admitted case of the parties that the scheduled flight was cancelled.

13. The grievance of the complainant is that he has reached in time at the airport to board the flight but flight was cancelled. No intimation was given for the cancellation of flight which caused losses to him.

14. The OP has taken the plea that there was massive earthquake during the intervening night of 26/27.04.2015 and intimation was received late regarding cancellation of flights from Kathmandu that is why the passengers were not intimated about the cancellation of flight. The refund of Rs.6042/- as demanded by the complainant was given though there was some delay so no cause of action if left with the complainant to file complaint.

15. It is clear from the material on record that OP has not given the intimation to the complainant about the cancellation of the flight. There is no material from OP that complainant has not supplied his mobile number or other details to remain in contact with him in case there is change in the flight schedule.

16. The PNR was changed by the OP in which complainant has no role to play.

17. The OP has not placed on record any material that information from Kathmandu was received at the very last moment i.e. when the flight was about to take off. The best possible evidence was with the OP which is not placed on record meaning thereby that there is no truth in the plea that intimation was received very late from Kathmandu.

18. The terms and conditions of carriage by Air Act, 1972 are placed on record by the OP including the terms and conditions for flight cancellation. It shows that spice jet shall make reasonable efforts for the timely operation of the schedule flight. Further, spice jet shall endeavour to inform the passengers about flight cancellation at least three hours in advance though telephonic call though SMS or call provided the passenger as complete details. The spice jet shall provide compensation in addition to the refund of Air ticket to the passengers who have not been informed.

19. There is no material from OP that complainant has not supplied his mobile number or other details to remain in contact with him in case there is change in the flight schedule.

20. The OP has not informed the complainant about the cancellation of the flight as OP was aware of the massive earthquake at Kathmandu. It was the bounden duty of the OP to inform the complainant about the cancellation of the flight when there is nothing on the record that a delayed information was received by the OP from Kathmandu. The OP has refunded the ticket amount though belatedly. The complainant has undergone mental harassment on account of cancellation of flight and OP is liable to compensate the complainant as no intimation was given to him about cancellation of flight. There is deficiency of service on the part of OP.

21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the compliant of the complainant is allowed.The complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.20,000/- for mental harassment, agony and litigation expenses. The OP is directed to comply with the order within 45 days from the receipt of the order failing which complainant will be entitled for interest @7% p.a. on the amount of mental harassment, agony and litigation charges i.e. from the date of order till its realization.

• A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
• File be consigned to record room.
• Announced in the open court on 12.11.2024.