Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/504/2020

Mr. Ramesh Kumar Kakar - Complainant(s)

Versus

SpiceJet Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Munish Kapila

29 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/504/2020
Date of Institution	:	4.11.2020
Date of Decision	:	29.3.2023

 

1. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Kakar S/o Sh. Hukam Chand Kakar aged 77 years.
2. Mrs. Savita Kakar W/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar Kakar aged 77 years, Both residents of House No.1614, Sector 44-B, Chandigarh 160043.  

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.   Spicejet  Ltd. 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase IV, Gurgaon-122016, Haryana, India through its Managing Director.

 .  … Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY		Sh. Munish Kapila, counsel for the complainants.
		None for OP.

Per surjeet kaur, Member

1. Briefly stated the complainant were to take the flight from New Delhi to Hong Kong on 19.4.2019 from New Delhi. For boarding flight for Hong Kong Notification Pre-arrival slip for pre-arrival Registration is required for Indian Nationals. Accordingly the complainants showed the notification slip to the official, a person dealing with immigration papers, near the check-in window. He pointed out that the slip pertaining to complainant No.1 name (Ramesh Kumar Kakkar) did show the middle name, which shows Surname as Kakar and given name as Ramesh Kumar was missing from given name.  The complainant No.1 told them that he wrote his middle name in the application form (questionnaire) filled online on the site of the Immigration Department of Govt. of Hong Kong. After finishing the questionnaire  he immediately received the Notification Slip for Pre-arrival Registration and he did  not notice that given name Notification Slip mentioned as Ramesh (although in the application, that is their questionnaire, he wrote Ramesh Kumar as in the passport considered this to be a normal practice as in air tickets also surname and the first given name is generally mentioned. Thus the complainant No.1 told the official of the OP that he  filled complete information and the official of the OP had assured the complainants they would sort out the matter in short time and asked the complainant to apply again on Hong Kong  Governments site and get fresh notification slip. The complainant accordingly again filled all  information on the Hong Kong Government site and pressed the confirmed button  but the system  sent a message that the notification slip already issued is still valid and a new PAR cannot be issued, which he showed to the official of the OP but they again asked the complainant to try again but again the same message was received by the complainant and he intimated the same to the officials of the OP who told the complainant to wait for some time and after a long wait  they told the complainants that they would not be allowed to check in and no boarding passes will be issued to them. The complainants made several requests to the officials of the OP but they were not issued boarding passes consequently the flight was missed. Thus the complainant had to leave the airport and had to stay in a nearby hotel.  On the next date on 20^th April 2019 the complainants again visited the airport and on that day the official of the OP handed over the print out of notification slip with middle name of the complainant mentioned in it within five minutes and the complainant had to again purchase a new tickets from New Delhi to Hong Kong costing Rs.97,500/- from Air Malaysia. The complainants made several communications with the OP for compensation for monetary loss and mental agony  and on 21.6.2019 the Nodal officer, Spice Jet informed the complainants that their investigation showed that  middle name was missing from the PAR Visa and told that they would not be in a position to consider the complainant’s request for any refund other than the statutory taxes. The complainant sent email to the Nodal officer and told that all the travel documents were complete in all respects and shown to the officials of the OP. On 23.6.2019, the Nodal officer again wrote to the complainant that there was discrepancy in the print of PAR, and asked the complainant to contact the concerned authority from where the print was received and they would not refund any compensation.  Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed
2. The Opposite Party in its reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that the complainants arrived at the board counter of the OP and had shown their documents for issuance of the boarding passes. On perusal of documents it was revealed that the complainant No.1 had booked the ticket with his name as Ramesh Kakkar, whereas all his documents including his passport, immigration documents , pre-arrival registration slip etc. mentioned his name as Ramesh Kumar Kakkar.  Thus thre was discrepancy in the name of the complainant due to which boarding pass could not have been issued to the complainant No.1. It is averred that in case of international travel in case there is discrepancy in the name of the passenger in the ticket and that in the travel documents, boarding passes cannot be issued to the passenger. The boarding pass was denied to complainant No.1 only but complainant No.2 also refused to take boarding pass and consequently both the complainants were no show for the flight in question. Consequently, after forfeiture of the no show charges balance ticket amount was remitted to the complainants on 23.6.2019 in the credit account through which the tickets were booked.  It is averred that all the passengers of the answering OP are governed by the terms and carriage contained in the e-ticket framed in accordance with Carriage by Air Act, 1972. Thus, it is denied that if there is any deficiency and negligence on the part of the OP.  All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
3. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated
4. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
6. The sole grouse of the complainant through the present complaints is that due to negligence  of the OPs they could not board  the flight from Delhi to Hong Kong  and had to again purchase new tickets from Air Malaysia.
7. The stand taken by the OPs is that it is the complainant No.1 only who was denied boarding pass due to the wrong detail of his name  in the ticket which was not same as was mentioned in his other documents.  
8. After going through the record it is abundantly clear that complainant No.1 booked the return ticket in the name of Ramesh Kakar and Savita Kakar from Delhi to Hong Kong  and when the complainants arrived at the boarding counter  of the OPs and showed their documents for issuance of boarding pass, it was revealed that complainant No.1 booked his ticket in the name of Ramesh Kakar whereas all his documents including passport, immigration documents, pre-arrival registration slip etc. revealed is name as Ramesh Kumar Kakar.
9. In our opinion there is discrepancy in the name of the complainant owing to which the boarding pass could not be issued to complainant No.1. Therefore, we feel that OPs had genuine reason to refuse the boarding pass specifically when it was the matter of international travel. It was the choice of complainant No.1 to send complainant No.2 to board the flight as she was not refused for the same but due to their joint choice to not to board the flight they missed the flight.
10. Moreover, a perusal of the written statement of the OPs, which is duly supported with the sworn affidavit of Sh. Vijay Roy, Dy. General Manager(Legal) of OP reveals that when both the complainant did not board the flight the status of the same was shown as no show and therefore after forfeiture of no show charges balance ticket amount was remitted to the complainant on 23.6.2019 in the credit account through which the ticket were booked. Surprisingly the said fact is nowhere mentioned in the complaint, which draws negative inference against the complainants.  Even otherwise the complainant No.1 himself at fault by not filling his name on the site as per his documents, due to this very reason he could not board the flight. Thus, we find no deficiency on the part of the OPs.  
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
12.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned

 

			sd/ [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member   Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member