Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/29/2015

Rajeev Tondon - Complainant(s)

Versus

SPICEJET LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. M.S.Saini Advocate

05 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	29/2015
Date of Institution	:	20.01.2015
Date of Decision	:	05/08/2015

 

                       

                            

 

 

Rajeev Tandon s/o Late Sh.Raj Kumar Tandon r/o  1541, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh aged 46 years.

                   ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.   Spicejet Ltd., 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon-122016, Haryana.

 

2.   Mr.Sandesh Kanwar Corporate Flyers Private Ltd., SCO 60-62, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:  SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

Sh.M.S.Saini, Advocate for the complainant and Sh.Rajeev Tandon, complainant in person.

Sh.C.D.Jindal, Counsel for OP No.1.

Sh.Sandesh Kanwar, Prop. Office of OP No.2

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.      In brief, the case of the complainant is that he planned to take his family to Port Blair in his winter vacations and accordingly he booked four tickets of Spice Air Jet Flight No.SG-104 for his family members for 24.12.2014 by paying Rs.73,028/- through OP No.2 on 27.11.2014. The copies of the booking confirmation receipt and tickets are Annexures C-1 and C-2 respectively.   It has further been averred that he took the tickets of OP No.1 to get the meals especially for his son –Arman who is suffering from cerebral palsy and is to be carried on wheel chair all the time. It has further been averred that it is very difficult for anyone to stay hungry for such a long time as flight was scheduled to take off at 7.55 a.m. and had a stopover at Calcutta for 40 minutes.  It has further been averred that on 24.12.2014, the flight was delayed for 7.55 a.m. to around 10.00 a.m. and the whole family of the complainant had not taken any breakfast outside the flight expecting to have the same in the flight. To his utter surprise, no food was served to him in the flight and on enquiry from the cabin crew, he was told that the option of giving food to passenger in the flight has been cancelled on which he agitated that OP No.1 should have at least informed the passengers.  It has further been averred that when the flight was stopped for 40 minutes at Calcutta, the passengers were to remain inside the aircraft and it was a tough time for the complainant and his family members because they had to remain hungry.  It has further been averred that seeing the condition of his son, he requested the crew team to provide some food to his son and take some extra money but to no effect.  It has further been averred that even on the ticket/boarding pass of the OP’s flight, food provisions were specifically mentioned.  It has further been averred that when he reached at Port Blair, he could not find wheel chair of his son-Armaan in his luggage, he contacted the staff of OP No.1 who informed him that by mistake they had dropped the wheel chair of the child at Kolkata Airport. The complainant had to take his child in his arms for full one day till OP No.1 got it back from Kolkata. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.      OP No.1 filed its written statement and stated that the complainant had got the ticket in question booked on 27.11.2014 through OP No.2 for the date of travel 24.12.2014. It has further been stated that since the second/third week of December, 2014 due to some technical reasons/dispute with caterers i.e. TAJSATS, they suddenly and abruptly stopped supplies of meals.  It has further been stated that since the supplies were stopped suddenly and abruptly, OP No.1 at a such a short notice could not arrange meals from any other caterer.  The said problem subsisted for about couple of weeks and thereafter the matter was sorted out and there was regular and un-interrupted supply of meals.   It has further been stated that in order to ensure that no inconvenience is caused to the passengers, it immediately started sending following message/mail/sms to the passengers:-

“Dear Spicejet Customer: We are sorry to inform you that due to technical reasons your pre-booked meal will not be served on your upcoming Spicejet flight(s). We will provide you the refund as per the payment mode. We regret the inconvenience caused.”

It has further been stated that the complainant might not have received the said information inasmuch as in the column of passenger contact information, the contract number, mobile number, e-mail etc. of OP No.2 has been mentioned. It has further been stated that the OP No.1 is not aware as to whether the aforesaid information had been passed on by OP No.2 to the complainant.  In view of the same, OP No.1 could not provide meals to the complainant and other fellow passengers on account of the aforesaid circumstances.  It has been denied that one of the passengers was suffering from cerebral palsy as alleged.  It was also denied that when the complainant reached at the airport he did not find wheel chair at the airport as alleged. The remaining averments were denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.      OP No.2 filed his written statement stating therein that he had performed his duties and there was no laxity on the part of the reservation done.   It has further been pleaded that the complainant has admitted that he travelled on the basis of the tickets generated by OP No.2.  The remaining allegations were denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on his part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.       The complainant filed replication to the written reply of the Opposite Party No.1 controverting its stand and reiterating his own.
5.      We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and OP No.1, Sh.Sandesh Kanwar, Proprietor of OP No.2 and have gone through the documents on record.
6.      The core question to be determined in this case is, as to whether, OP No.1 was deficient in rendering services by not serving the meals to the complainant and his family members who travelled in its aircraft on 24.12.2014. The answer to this question is in the affirmative. It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant had booked four tickets for his family members including himself for Rs.73,028/- and the food was also to be served to them in the flight by OP No.1. The stand of OP No.1 is that since the second/third week of December, 2014 due to some dispute with caterers i.e. TAJSATS, they suddenly and abruptly stopped supplies of the meals and, therefore, it could not provide the meals to the complainant and the co-passengers on 24.12.2014.  It was argued on behalf of OP No.1 that it has discharged its duties by sending the information, in this regard, by way of message/mail/SMS to OP No.2 whose particulars were mentioned on the ticket.  However, we find no weight in this submission of OP No.1 because it has failed to prove the same by placing on record any cogent and reliable documentary evidence in this regard.  Moreover, if it had any dispute with its caterers then it should have made alternative arrangements for the meals to be served to the passengers travelling in its aircraft but it failed to do so. Further, it is not a uphill task for the reputed company like OP No.1 to make such an alternative arrangement for the meals to be served to the passengers travelling in its flight on 24.12.2014 especially when it had the prior knowledge that the caterers had stopped the supplies of the meals since the second week of December 2014 as alleged by it. Had OP No.1 made timely alternative arrangements for the meals to be served to the complainant and his family members then the matter certainly would have been different but it did not bother to do so. Even OP No.1 has not placed on record any documentary evidence to show that the complainant has been compensated by it on this count. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the complainant and his family members must have suffered mental agony and physical harassment on account of non-serving of the meals during their journey in the flight of OP No.1 and, therefore, it is proved to be deficient in rendering the promised services to the complainant.
7.      In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. Opposite Party No.1 is directed as under ;-

1. To pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.5,500/- as litigation expenses.

This order be complied with by Opposite Party No.1, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(i) above shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.

8.      However, the complaint qua OP No.2 stands dismissed.
9.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

05/08/2015

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER