Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/268/2015

Justice N K Agarwal (Retd.) - Complainant(s)

Versus

Spicejet Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Rajvir Singh Sihag

20 Nov 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/268/2015
Date of Institution	:	01/05/2015
Date of Decision	:	20/11/2015

 

 

[1]     Justice N.K. Agarwal [Retd.] son of Sri Narayan Das.

[2]     Bimla Devi w/o Justice N.K. Agarwal [Retd.]

Both residents of H.No.305, GH 34, Sector 5, MDC, Panchkula –134114.

…..Complainants

V E R S U S

[1]     Spicejet Ltd., Corporate Office, 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon – 122016 (Haryana), through its Managing Director/Director.

[2]     Spicejet Ltd., having its local office at Civil Airport Terminal, Zirakpur Road, Chandigarh through its Office Incharge.

[3]     Make My Trip (India) Pvt. Ltd., Tower-A, S.P. Info City, 243, Udyog Vihar Phase I, Gurgaon – 122016 (Haryana), through its Director.

[4]     Make My Trip (India) Pvt. Ltd., SCO 43-44, Sector 8, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its Office Incharge.

……Opposite Parties

 

 

QUORUM:	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                       

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Rajvir Singh Sihag, Counsel for Complainants
		Sh. Ashutosh Gupta, Counsel for OP Nos.1 & 2
		Sh. Naveen Sharma, Counsel for OP Nos.3 & 4

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

1.         Tersely, the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the disposal of the instant Consumer Complaint and emanating from the record are that, the Complainant No.1 booked two air tickets on-line of Spicejet Airline on 17.10.2014, through Make My Trip (India) Pvt. Ltd., from Chandigarh to Varanasi on 25.11.2014 and from Varanasi to Chandigarh on 01.12.2014 with stop-over for about 02 hrs. at the Delhi Airport in both the journeys, after paying a sum of Rs.22,614/-. It has been alleged that the Complainants travelled by the Spicejet Flight No. SG 2112 from Chandigarh to Delhi on 25.11.2014. But their connecting Spicejet Flight No. SG 114 from Delhi to Varanasi had been cancelled. After frantic efforts, the Complainants accommodated in the Indigo Airlines Flight No. 6 E 118 from Delhi to Varanasi.  Nonetheless, the Complainants’ misfortune was indeed not over as they found again at Varanasi that their scheduled Spicejet Flight No. SG 119 from Varanasi to Delhi on 01.12.2014 had been cancelled. The said intimation for cancellation was given telephonically by Opposite Party No.1 on 30.11.2014.  The Complainants were compelled to book their tickets with Indigo Airlines Flight No. 6 E 119 from Varanasi to Delhi for 01.12.2014 on payment of Rs.17,496/-. They managed to reach Delhi in time on 01.12.2014 to catch the next connecting Spicejet Flight from Delhi to Chandigarh and thus reached home. Thereafter, the Complainant No.1 made several requests to the Opposite Parties to refund of the air fare regarding the cancelled flight (Varanasi to Delhi). However, after numerous reminders, only a sum of Rs.5610/- was refunded on 05.01.2015, which accordingly to the Complainants was not only disproportionate but totally arbitrary and unfair. Hence, this Complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case
3.         In their joint reply, Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2 have pleaded that the flight was cancelled due to technical and operational reasons which were not in their control. The passengers, including the Complainant were intimated about the said changes well in advance. The officials of the Spicejet also gave the Complainants two option either they can cancel the reservation and take full refund on request back to the original mode of payment or they can shift their particular flight to the next available flight free of cost. The answering Opposite Parties had also remitted a sum of Rs.5610/- in lieu of the cancelled flight directly to the account from which the booking was made, in favour of the Complainant. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.         In their joint reply, Opposite Parties No. 3 & 4 have pleaded that they had discharged their complete liability by issuing confirmed tickets to the Complainants. The cancellation of the respective flights was done by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 and the answering Opposite Parties had no authority over the functioning of the Airlines and hence cannot be held liable for any act of the Airlines. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
5.         The Complainant also filed replication wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have been controverted.
6.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
7.         We have gone through the entire evidence and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the Parties.
8.         A perusal of E-Ticket (Annexure C-1) shows that it does not carry the terms and conditions as alleged by the Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2.  The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have placed reliance on Rule 19 of the Chapter XI of the Notification regarding application of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 to Carriage by air. The above given facts and circumstances apply only in case of delay; whereas, in the instant case, the flight of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 was cancelled, without assigning any plausible reasons. It is also observed that Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 had intimated the Complainant on 19.11.2014 that the flight scheduled for 25.11.2014 had been cancelled. The receipt of such information has been denied by the Complainant. It is observed that the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have not assigned any specific reasons. The delay or cancellation normally has to be for the unavoidable reasons and not on commercial considerations. The message was sent to the Complainants was never delivered, thus, have no value in the eyes of law. Even the flight from Varanasi to Delhi on 30.11.2014 was also cancelled, left no other choice for the Complainants, except to travel by other airline, by paying heavy last minute ticketing charges. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are seeking excuse/exoneration from their liability merely in a perfunctory manner by intimating cancellation, without specifying the specific reasons for the same. Hence, we are of the concerted view that deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 is writ large.
9.         In the light of above observations, the present complaint of the Complainants deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are, jointly & severally, directed, to:-

 

[a]     To pay Rs.11,886/- (Rs.17496 -  5610) to the Complainants towards actual cost borne by them on account of performing journey from Varanasi to Delhi by making their own arrangement, through the Indigo Airlines on 01.12.2014;

 

[b]     To pay Rs.15,000/- each to the Complainants on account of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and causing mental agony and harassment; 

 

[c]     To pay Rs.11,000/- as cost of litigation;

 

 

                The Complaint against Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 is dismissed.

10.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as mentioned in sub-para [c] above.   
11.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
20/11/2015	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
	Presiding Member	Member
“Dutt”