BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM.
KAMRUP
C.C.No.41/2016
Present: I) Shri A.F.A.Bora, M.Sc.,L.L.B.,A.J.S -President
II) Smti Archana Deka Lahkar,B.Sc.,L.L.B. -Member
III) Sri Jamatul Islam,B.Sc,Former Dy
Director,FCS & CA - Member
Mr.Dinesh Kr.Mishra - Complainant
S/O Late K.N.Mishra
Address: House No. 15, Associate Law Chamber
Dighalipukhuri (East),Guwahati-781001
District Kamrup (M),Assam
-vs-
I) SpiceJet Ltd. -Opposite parties
Represented by its Director,
319,Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon
PIN-122016, Haryana
II) Ajay Singh
Promoter, SpiceJet Ltd.
319,Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon
PIN-122016, Haryana
III) Mr.Suhail Wani,
Senior Executive, Customer Experience
SpiceJet Ltd. 319,Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV,
Gurgaon,
PIN-122016, Haryana
Appearance
1) Mr.P.K.Sarma, Mr.M.More, advocates for the complainant .
2) Mr.A.Bhattacharya, Mr.K.Talukdar, Mr.S.Dey, Mr.J.A.Sheikh, Mr.P. Dey for the Opposite party .
Date of argument: 18.02.2020
Date of judgment: 18.03.2020
JUDGEMENT
1) This is a complaint petition filed u/s 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 by one Sri Dinesh Kr.Mishra, against Spicejet Ltd, represented by its Director and Ajay Singh, promoter from Spicejet Ltd. and Sri Suhail Wani , Senior Executive as opposite party No. 3. It is claimed that complainant is a consumer u/s 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and is entitled for all protections under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is alleged that there was a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and the fact of the case briefly narrating is that on 24.2.2015 the complainant purchased 4 (four) tickets from the opposite party No. 1 , Guwahati through his travel agent, Mr.Biswajit Das for himself and his wife. The travel plan was on 8.4.15 from Guwahati to Delhi and on 17.4.15 from Delhi to Guwahati. According to the complainant the aforesaid four tickets bought by the complainant from Opposite Party No.1 for himself and for wife and ticket price for travelling from Guwahati to Delhi for two tickets was Rs.9,600/-out of which Rs.2,000/- charged by the Opp.Party No.1 as Seat Fee i.e. Spice Max Seat for allotment of Seat No. 1A and 1C which were priority seat in the first row of the aircraft. Accordingly, the additional charge was taken from the opp.party to the tune of Rs.2,000/- for duration of the flight from Guwahati to Delhi.
2) This part of the journey of the complainant was as per purchase of the ticket, but for the remaining two air tickets brought by the complainant from opposite party on the same day i.e. 24.2.15 for himself and for his wife in order to travel from Delhi to Guwahati on 17.4.15 the complainant paid Rs.9,668/- out of which Rs.2,000/- was paid for two SpiceMax Seat and accordingly Seat No. 1A and 1C were sold to the complainant by the opposite party for additional amount of Rs.2,000/- and it is alleged that on the day of purchased i.e. 24.2.15 the complainant received confirmation massage from the opposite party on mobile phone bearing No.9435017556 through SMS. The massage includes PNR number stating that he was invited to check in at Spice Max priority check-in counter where available. It is further stated that the massage was received from the opposite party which read as under,
“ Dear Mr. Mishra: You are confirmed on flight SG 273 dated 17 April-15 departing at 10:30 A.M. from Delhi to Guwahati. Your PNR is G3ER8F. You are invited to check in at Spice Max priority check-in counter where available. We look forward to having you on board.”
3) During the period of booking there was a message from the opposite party about the change of flight and timing etc. Accordingly complainant travelled on flight No. SG 276 dtd. 8.4.15 from Guwahati to Delhi in Seat No. 1A and 1C.
4) But due to change of the flight from Delhi to Guwahati on 17.4.15 the aircraft was changed from SG273 to SG277, but on 17.4.15 when the complainant along with his wife checked in at New Delhi Airport, they were allotted Seat No. 1A and 1C by issuing boarding pass to board on Flight No. SG 277 from Gate No. 12.
5) That the complainant and his wife were put under Scanner at Gate No. 12 and they heard beeping sound and one of the attending lady of the opposite party manually changed the Seat No. 1A and 1C to Seat No. 3E and 3D by striking out the Seat No. mentioned in the Boarding Passes.
6) The complainant was surprised for the aforesaid act of the opposite party and felt humiliated and in front of the fellow passengers and he protested the act of the opposite party, but no one paid any heed to the protest made by the complainant . The complainant finding no alternative, boarded the aircraft under protest even though he had paid in the month of February/2015 an additional amount of Rs.2,000/- to the opposite party No. 1 to travel on Seat No.1A and 1C in the aircraft dtd. 17.4.2015.
7) On his return the complainant informed the matter to his travel agent on 17.4.2015 and also informed the customer care and sales desk of the opposite party No. 1 about the incident. The complainant also on the same day informed the travel agent about the incident through e.mail with a copy to the customer care and sales desk of the opp.party No. 1. According to the complainant, the opposite party did not pay any respond to the communication.
8) Thereafter, on 18.4.15, the complainant found that the original ticket purchased by the complainant to travel from Delhi to Guwahati on 17.4.15 has been removed from the website of the opp.party No.1 and same was replaced with another ticket with seat number changed from 1A and 1C to 3D and 3E respectively keeping the PNR No. and booking dated same as the original ticket issued to the complainant by the travel agent which has been caused with an intention to disappearance of the evidence.
9) The complainant then sent an e.mail to the customer care and the sales desk, but till filing of the complaint no response was received from the opp.party No.1 which clearly shows negligence and negative response and the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
10) After receiving the complaint, notices were issued upon the opposite parties . The opposite parties appeared and contested the suit by filing the written statement denying the allegations made by the complainant.
11) It is submitted that 1st six rows of the seats are priority seats having larger leg spaces. It is further submitted that seats on row 6 A to 6 E are SMAX seats having more leg spaces and all are put in category of SMAX seats.
12) The pertinent question about changing the seat number in blue pen from 1 A and 1 C to 3 D and 3 E by striking of the seat No. in the boarding pass is then an act on the part of the opposite party without proper explanation.
13) It is submitted that due to unavoidable circumstances the opp.party could not operate their own air-craft and took another air-craft on wet lease and according to them on that air-craft 1 A and 1 C was not SMAX seat, rather 2nd , 3rd and 4th row were the seats with extra and larger seats. As the complainant was entitled to travel on SMAX seats and accordingly seats were changed from 1 A and 1 C to 3 D and
3 E.
14) For the above reason it is submitted by the opposite party that seat No. 3 D and 3 E were given to the complainant as these were SMAX seats as 1 A and 1 C in the air craft was not SMAX seats. As such, it is submitted that there is no deficiency in service whatsoever to the complainant by the respondents.
15) It is further submitted in the written statement that there was no untoward behavior of the respondent or their employees to humiliate in front of all the fellow passengers and submits that there is no cause of actions in the present case .The complainant was given SMAX seats in the said air craft and termed the complaint as false, frivolous and liable to be prosecuted for perjury by imposing fine etc.
16) It is again submitted that due to change in the air craft seat No. 1 A and 1 C was not the SMAX seat and rather 3 D and 3 E was given to the complainant which were the SMAX seat. The contention in the parawise reply basically is denial of the claim made by the complainant but the payment of Rs.2,000/- extra charges that SMAX tickets which are priority seats is admitted. It is further submitted that allotment of seat by the respondents is as per availability and it is submitted that while travelling back by the complainant, due to some un-avoidable circumstances, opposite party could not commence its operations on their own aircraft and took another aircraft in which . first row i.e. 1 A to 1 E was not SMAX seat. It is further admitted that since the complainant had paid extra amount of said facility i.e. SMAX seat and as such their seats were changed from 1 A and 1 C to 3 D and 3 E.
17) It is categorically denied the contention of the complaint petition and admitted by the respondents that complainant had purchased the SMAX ticket and rightly he was allotted with the same and only the number was changed. The legroom and the comfort for the passenger in all the SMAX seats are similar and as such complainant cannot claim that there was deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.
18) The other allegations made in the complaint petitions are categorically denied about changing of seat allotment by the respondents attempting to cause disappearance of evidence relating to allotment of seats on 14.5.15 when legal notice was issued on 20.5.15 The opp.party further alleged that the complainant approached the forum with ulterior motives and allegations are false and concocted and pray for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
19) Having such ground on written statement and on the basis of the pleading of the parties following issues are taken for discussion.
I) Whether complainant was issued SMAX seat on additional charge of Rs.2000/- ?
II) Whether complainant was allowed to travel back with extra leg space specification on the basis of additional charge ?
III) Whether there was deficiency of service on the part of the opp.party ?
IV) Whether complainant is entitle for compensation for deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party ?
V) Whether complainant is entitle for compensation as claimed ?
20) After due consideration of the pleadings of the parties we found that complainant was a passenger of the aircraft operated by the opposite party while travelling from Guwahati to Delhi and back. It is also undisputed that complainant purchased SMAX ticket ( Priority seat with extra leg space) at the cost of an additional amount of Rs.2,000/-.
21) From the pleading we have found that it is also admitted that complainant availed the priority seat on the basis of ticket issued by the opp.party, but while returning back from Delhi to Guwahati the situation became different and the complainant had to travel on a seat along with his wife which is numbered 3D and 3 E instead of prior purchased priority seat bearing No. 1A and 1C.
22) Now the pertinent question is whether seat No. 1 A and 1C are same and identical with that of 3D and 3E with extra leg space which can be treated as priority seat. As such this become an issue for determining the dispute. Accordingly, issue No. I, II & III are taken jointly for convenience of discussion as all the issues are corelated.
23) We have scrutinized the evidence of C.W. No. 1 which reveals that complainant purchased two numbers of tickets from Delhi to Guwahati from the opp.party on 17.4.15 by payment of Rs. 9,968/- out of which
Rs.2,000/- was paid as seat fee for allotment of seat No.1 A and 1C. Ex.2 is the said ticket produced by the complainant which is clear enough to show that seat No. 1A and 1C were issued to the complainant .
24) But if we look at Ex 3 and Ex.4 it appears that seat No. 1 A and 1 C were hand written as seat No. 3D and 3E. At the same time if we look at contents of SMS in the evidence of C.W. No. 1 it appears that opp.party made a confirmation about Spice MAX priority which is as below,
“Dear Mr.Mishra: You are confirmed on flight SG 272 dated 08 April-15 departing at 10:45 AM from Guwahati to Delhi. Your PNR is IBMS8K. You are invited to check in at Spice MAX priority check-in counter where available. We look forward to having you on board.”
“Dear Mr.Mishra : You are confirmed on flight SG 273 dtd. 17 April-15 departing at 10-30 AM from Delhi to Guwahati. Your PNR is G3ER8F. You are invited to check in at Spice MAX priority check-in counter where available. We look forward to having you on board.
25) We have found on record the written statement filed by the opp.party that due to change of aircraft for unavoidable circumstances the opp.party could not commence its operation and they took another aircraft on wet lease . It is submitted that in the changed aircraft seat No. 1A and 1C were not the SMAX seats and rather seat No.s 3 D and 3E which were given to the complainant were the SMAX seats. But the evidence of the complainant in support of the said statement is not rebutted by the opposite party nor they have produced any evidence to prove the fact that seat No. 3D and 3E are SMAX seat. The mere plea taken by the opposite party in their written statement that 1A and 1C of the flight No. SG 273 dtd. 17th April ,2015 is equivalent to or same of the seat No. 3D and 3E in the flight No. SG 277. The boarding passes that is Ex.3 and Ex.4 are found manually converted by striking out 1A and 1C to 3 D and 3 E respectively which is not justified because there is no evidence on record to prove that seat No. 3D and 3E are priority seat / SMAX seat with extra leg space.
26) While contesting the case the opp.party claims that it is false , frivolous and misconceived of fact of the complaint made by the complainant with ulterior motives and malafide intentions . On the other hand, the allegation made by the complainant that the Seat No. 1A and 1C were given to a family consisting of three persons by the opposite party.
27) Such conduct of the opposite party was informed to the travel agent through Ex.5 on the very day of the journey i.e. April ,17th 2015 at 5:02 p.m. The reason of changing of seats from 1 A to 3 D and 1C to 3E in the aircraft is not fairly explained by the opposite party and without providing any evidence in their support through any officials of the opposite party. It is a plea taken by the opposite party that due to unavoidable circumstances they took another aircraft on wet lease, in which the first row seat or the last row seat have the same comfort and leg room for the passenger.
28) This batch of seats have better luxury as compared to other seats in the aircraft. This plea of the opposite party cannot be accepted that the complainant was given priority seat /SMAX seat by paying an extra fee of Rs.2,000/- . The opposite party have denied the deficiency and negligence on their part , but it is an admitted fact that the complainant paid an additional charge of Rs.2,000/- for which priority seats/SMAX seat i.e. 1 A and 1C were issued to him. If the fact narrated in the written statement of the opp.party is correct, then the same ought to have been proved by adducing evidence to that effect and given an opportunity to the complainant to rebut the same which has not been done in the instant case.
29) Under the above circumstances, we can safely presume that allotted seat to the complainant were not given in the changed flight for which an extra charge was paid by the complainant. The e.mail notices vide Ex.5 instantly sent to the opp.party was respondent which indicates correctness of the complaint to certain extent. Further the evidence of C.W. 2 is clear enough to show that the matter was informed by the complainant on the very day of journey that is 17.5.15 and Ex 11 is the e mail sent by C.W.2. But this fact has not been rebutted by the opposite party by cross examining the C.W.s and not producing any evidence to rebut the same .
30) Merely submitting written statement by the opposite party denying the allegation and taking a different plea is not sufficient to disbelieve the allegation made by the complainant. Accordingly, all above three issues are decided in favour of the complainant.
31) Lastly issue No. 4 & 5 are taken jointly for discussion. From the foregoing discussion it is apparent that there was no evidence on record to prove that complainant was allowed to travel back from Delhi to Guwahati on an aircraft having priority seat with extra leg space on the payment of additional charges and accordingly issue No. 2 was decided in negative. Similarly issue No.III is found in affirmative and in favour of the complainant holding a view that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
32) Now issue No.V is taken for discussion and decision. The complainant is found entitled for compensation as there is a deficiency of service on the part of the opp.party for not providing the specified seat for which additional charges was paid by the complainant. There is an allegation of misbehave and misconduct which is not proved , but however not allowing to seat on the earmarked or pre booked priority seat/ SMAX seat has caused humiliation to the complainant and his wife in presence of the fellow passengers.
33) If there was a change of seat from 1st row to 3rd row that could have been intimated to the complainant through SMS as a general practices. The opp.party have not adduced any evidence as already discussed to rebut the evidence of the complainant about the deficiency of service and denial of the seat allowed to him on his air ticket and boarding pass procured by him at the airport . Hence, this two issues are decided in affirmative and complainant is found entitled for compensation.
34) The next question is the amount of compensation. We have considered the entire circumstances and also considered the nature of the dispute for which a token compensation amount along with cost of the proceeding is to be awarded to the complainant and in our opinion an amount of Rs.20,000/- along with cost of litigation will meet the end of justice.
Order
It is directed that opp.party will pay a compensation amount of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only in favour of the complainant and will have to pay litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- . The opp.party will have to pay the amount within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of judgment , failing which the opposite party have to pay an interest @9% per annum from the date of judgment till realization.
Given under our hand and seal of the District Forum, Kamrup , this the 18th day of March, 2020.
Member Member President
