Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/633/2021

Anil Narula - Complainant(s)

Versus

Spicejet Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Vikas Kuthiala

02 Jun 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/633/2021
Date of Institution	:	20/09/2021
Date of Decision	:	02/06/2022

 

Anil Narula s/o Sh. Ram Lal Narula, aged about 45 years resident of House No.318, Top Floor, Sector 40-A, Chandigarh 160036.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

Spicejet Ltd., having its Registered Office/Corporate Office at #319, Udyog Vihar, Phase IV, Gurgaon 122016 (Punjab) through its Managing Director Ajay Singh.

… Opposite Party

CORAM :	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                

 

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Vikas Kuthiala, Counsel for complainant
	:	OP ex-parte

 

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.      The facts in brief are, on 15.3.2021 complainant booked a flight (SG 254) with the OP and paid the amount of ₹77,824/- through net banking (debit card) for travelling from Port Blair to New Delhi on 29.3.2021 for eight members.  The complainant also booked seats and meals of his choice and paid the extra amount of ₹2,074/- and ₹6,134/- on 21.3.2021 and 22.3.2021. He had also booked onward flight from Delhi to Chandigarh on 29.3.2021 departing at 6.50 p.m. However, the OP vide email dated 27.3.2021 informed the complainant that the flight from Port Blair had been rescheduled from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. and that the same would land at New Delhi at 8.35 p.m. Averred due to the sudden rescheduling of the flight by the OP, complainant had to check out of the hotel early and hire taxis to kill time at Port Blair. In this process, complainant had to incur extra amount for hiring taxi and for lunch/ refreshments at Port Blair as well as for booking another flight from Delhi to Chandigarh. According to the complainant, had his flight been not rescheduled, he would not have paid the said amounts. The complainant was also not provided the assigned seats despite advance payment. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP, complainant filed the instant consumer complaint.
2.     Registered notice was sent to the OP which was presumed to have been served. Since none appeared on behalf of the OP, therefore, vide order dated 17.3.2022 of this Commission, OP was proceeded against ex-parte.
3.     Complainant led evidence by way of affidavit and documents.
4.     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through record of the case.
5.     The sole grouse of the complainant in the present consumer complaint is that due to sudden rescheduling of the flight in question, the complainant and his family members, including a senior citizen and three minor children, had to suffer a lot of harassment in as much as complainant had to unnecessarily shell out extra amount from his own pocket out of his hard earned money just for spending time at Port Blair. The complainant was also not provided the seats of his choice in the rescheduled flight for which he had paid consideration to the OP for the comfort of his family. Thereafter the complainant had also to cancel the Indigo flight for travel from Delhi to Chandigarh and had to reschedule the same again and also pay extra for the same.
6.     It is important to note the OP did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of OP draws an adverse inference. The non-appearance of the OP shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted. 
7.     A bare perusal of the above shows that due to sudden rescheduling of the flight by the OP, all the plans of the complainant went haywire and he and his family of eight members had to spend extra amount for their forced stay at Port Blair as well as lunch/refreshments. Had the complainant and his family boarded the scheduled flight, he would have saved the said expenses as well as time and the resultant harassment.  Therefore, the act of the OP in sudden rescheduling of the flight, without providing any reason for the same, and thereafter non appearing during the proceedings of the present case proves deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part. Hence, the present consumer complaint deserves to be allowed and the complainant is entitled to compensation for the unnecessary harassment suffered by him at the hands of the OP.  
8.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OP is directed as under :-

1. to pay an amount of ₹20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
2. to pay ₹5,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

9.     This order be complied with by the OP within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.
10.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
02/06/2022	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member