Punjab

StateCommission

A/1351/2014

Nitish Mahajan - Complainant(s)

Versus

SpiceJet Limited - Opp.Party(s)

By Post

27 Jan 2015

ORDER

2^nd Additional Bench

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB

DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH

First Appeal No.1351 of 2014

                                                           

                                    Date of institution:  30.9.2014

                             Date of Decision:   27.1.2015

 

Dr. Nitish Mahajan son of Dr. V.K. Mahajan, resident of 111, Shaheed Udham Singh Nagar, Jalandhar.

…..Appellant/Complainant

                                      Versus

The Managing Director, Spicejet Limited, 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon, Haryana.

…..Respondent/Opposite party

 

First Appeal against the order dated 25.8.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar.

 

Quorum:-

 

              Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

              Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellant             :         None.

Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

ORDER

The appellant/complainant(hereinafter referred as “the complainant”) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 25.8.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar(hereinafter referred as “the District Forum”) in consumer complaint No.67 dated 25.2.2014 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed. 

2.                The complaint was lodged by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short ‘the Act’) against the respondent/opposite party((hereinafter referred as ‘OP’)  on the allegations that he booked Air Ticket from Delhi to Goa and back Air E-ticket through Airlines of the OP on 15.10.2013 and got the printout of the e-tickets through Internet and status ‘confirmed ticket’ and total price of the to and fro was Rs. 36,650/-. He was to proceed to Goa on 25.10.2013 from Delhi and was to come back from Goa to Delhi on 31.10.2013. As per the e-tickets, the complainant reached Delhi Airport alongwith his wife on 25.10.2013 for boarding his flight Spicejet but their Boarding Counter refused to issue the boarding pass and e-ticket with them. He got e-ticket booked with ICICI Bank Card at Jalandhar. They were compelled to purchase the Air Ticket at the spot after paying Rs. 47,690/- for one side i.e. from Delhi to Goa on 31.10.2013. The tickets from Goa to Delhi were not available, therefore, they purchased tickets from Goa to Chandigarh after spending a sum of Rs. 38,942/- and in this way they were compelled to spend a sum of Rs. 66,632/-. The opposite party is liable to pay Rs. 49,982/- i.e. the different amount of Airfares incurred due to their negligence. Hence, the complaint with a direction to the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 49,982/-, pay Rs. 15 lacs towards compensation and Rs. 15,000/- as cost of litigation.

3.                The complaint was contested by the Op taking preliminary objections that the present complaint was not maintainable; the complainant had no cause of action; there was no deficiency in services on the part of the OP; the complaint was not maintainable as the complainant had concealed the material facts; the complainant tried booking a e-ticket from the website of Spicejet and temporary PNR was created and said ticket was not confirmed as the complainant failed to transfer the ticket amount to the account of the opposite party, therefore, the requisite amount was not transferred to the account of the Op, therefore, the said ticket was without consideration. Moreover, the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint; there was no privity of contract between the parties, therefore, the complaint was liable to be dismissed. Same facts were reiterated on merits and ultimately it was submitted that the complaint was without merit and it be dismissed.

4.                The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.

5.                In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex. CW-1/A and documents Ex. C-1 to C-5. On the other hand, the opposite party had tendered into evidence affidavit of Vijay Roy, Auth. Representative Ex. OP-A.

6.                After going through the allegations in the complaint, written reply filed by the OP, evidence and documents brought on the record, after observing that the complainant has not lead any evidence to show that amount of the tickets purchased by him was transferred to the account of the OP. The complainant had not produced any statement of account of ICICI Bank to show that the amount of the tickets was debited from his account to the account of the OP and the complaint was dismissed.

7.                The appeal was received by post. Notice was sent to the appellant but he did not appear despite service.

8.                We have gone through the grounds of appeal. Mainly it has been stated that the learned District Forum has not gone through the documents i.e. tickets issued from their website and onus to prove the payment has been wrongly placed upon the complainant, accordingly, the order of the District Forum was challenged. A prayer was made to set aside the said order.

9.                In view of the specific plea taken by the OP duly supported by an affidavit that no doubt that temporary PNR was created by the complainant from their website but no amount was transferred to the account of the OP, therefore, that ticket was without consideration; that ticket was not honoured by them whereas the complainant has failed to show on the record by providing the bank statement to show the payment against those tickets to the OP. Mere creating PNR is not sufficient, payment is also necessary to prove that it was for consideration but the appellant has failed to place on the record any statement of account showing that amount of Rs. 36,650/- was transferred from his account to the account of the Op, therefore, we are of the opinion that the order so passed by the learned District Forum is justified.

10.              From the grounds of appeal, no point is made out to admit the appeal, therefore, the appeal is dismissed in limine.

11.              The arguments in this appeal were heard on 21.1.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

 

 (Gurcharan Singh Saran)

Presiding Judicial Member

 

January 27, 2015.                                                                                                                                                       (Jasbir Singh Gill)

as                                                                                                                                                                                              Member