Haryana

Panchkula

CC/46/2015

SEWA RAM. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SPICEJET LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

18 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                            

Sewa Ram s/o Late Sh.Kartar Chand, R/o # 660, Sector 26, Panchkula 134116.

                                                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

Spice Jet Ltd. (through it’s Chief Executive Officer), Corporate Office, 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase IV, Gurgaon 122016 (Haryana).

                                                                                        ….Opposite Party

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Quorum:               Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

For the Parties:     None for the complainant. 

Mr.Chand Deep Jindal, Adv., for the Op.

ORDER

(Anita Kapoor, Member)

1. The complainant Sewa Ram has filed this complaint against the opposite party (in short the Op) with the averments that on 05.11.2014, he booked two tickets from the website of OP
2. In reply, the OP filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the complainant purchased tickets through email for travelling in the aircraft of the OP. It is submitted that intimation regarding the cancellation of the flight had been given to the complainant about 4 days prior to the scheduled date of departure of the flight. It is submitted that the terms and conditions were also mentioned in the tickets as one of the clauses is as under

“The company reserves to itself the right, without assigning any reason, to cancel or delay the commencement or continuance of the flight or to alter the stopping place or to deviate from the route of the journey or to change the type of aircraft in use without thereby incurring any liability in damages or otherwise to the passengers or any other person on any ground whatsoever. The company also reserves to itself the right to refuse to carry any person whom it considers unfit to travel or who in the opinion of the company may constitute risks to the aircraft or to the persons on board.”

It is submitted that the flight was cancelled due to technical and operational reasons which was beyond power and control of the operating airlines. It is submitted that the complainant was given option to take alternate flight but he refused & asked for refund of amount which was refunded to him. It is submitted that all airlines are governed by the Rules and Regulations framed by the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) which is a regulatory body. As per paras 3.3.2 of the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) issued by DGCA on 06.08.2012 relating to cancellation of flings, the operating airline’s liability for compensation arises only when the passengers have not been informed about the cancellation, at least 3 hours, prior to departure of the flight, on which they were scheduled to travel. It is submitted that the complainant & other passengers have been informed about 2 months in advance about the said cancellation as such the complainant could not be compensated in terms of the aforesaid CAR issued by DGCA. It is submitted that on account of adverse weather and geographical conditions, the flight had to be cancelled. It is submitted that there was no privity of contract between the parties after the tickets were got cancelled by the complainant. It is denied that the complainant had to pay Rs.9966/ more while making the fresh bookings.

3. When on 18.05.2015, the case was fixed for filing evidence of the parties, the complainant has not appeared to tender his evidence and the same was adjourned to 26.05.2015 for filing evidence of the parties but on 26.05.2015, quorum was not complete and the case was adjourned to 08.06.2015. On 08.06.2015, again the complainant has not appeared to tender his evidence and the counsel for the OP has filed & closed his evidence and the case was adjourned to 19.06.2015.  On 19.06.2015, the quorum was not complete and the case was adjourned to 29.06.2015, 10.07.2015 and again on 29.07.2015 for filing evidence of the complainant subject to the last opportunity but also on 29.07.2015, the complainant has not appeared to tender his evidence despite repeated calls.
4. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the OP and have given our conscious thought to the pleas raised during the course of hearing in their relatability to the pleadings made by the counsel for the OP herein. We are of the distilled view that the complainant deserves to be non suited and we proceed to give the reasoning in support of our view hereunder.
5. In order to succeed in this complaint, the complainant has to prove that there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. That the cancellation of the flight, for which the complainant had confirmation of the reservation, did come about and that it could indeed come about at the hands of the OP is beyond the pale of controversy. The grievance of the complainant is that on receipt of the intimation about cancellation of the flight, he tried to contact the OP on telephone but that contact could not be established as the called up numbers did not respond. It was thereafter, that he informed the OP on 30.12.2015 that in case there was no response from it, he would book tickets through some other airlines. It is in the own affidavit of the complainant that he did receive an “auto reply message” which was “of no use to him”. There is further averment that he intimated the alternative flight for the booking and the OP “directed him to website change  which was not helpful”. The further averment in continuity is that “Moreover there was no surety that alternative flight if any would also not be cancelled at the last moment as there were frequent cancellations of spicejet flights”.
6. The averments made by the complainant in the course of para 2 of the complaint falsify his own grievance. He admitted that booking for alternative flight had been offered to him but that he did not avail of the offer because “there was no surety that alternative flight if any would also not be cancelled”. The reason averred in support of the non-availing of the offer is too hypothetical and unacceptable. The complainant does not indicate why the auto reply message was not any use to him. He also does not explain that the contact established by him at the website “was not helpful”. If the complainant found that the response furnished vide auto reply message and the website change.speicejet.com were not helpful, he has to indicate why exactly did he not find those helpful. Interestingly enough, the re-booking done by him was for another date. It follows therefrom that time, for him, was not of the essence of the transaction. If the complainant got panicky and opted to book the tickets through another airlines, and that also for another date, that was in exercise of his own discretion and he cannot bill the OP just because he felt that “there was no surety that the alternative flight if any would also not be cancelled at the last moment as there were frequent cancellation of spicejet flight”.
7. In the light of the discussion in the preceding paras, we find no merit in the complaint which is dismissed.  
8. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

ANNOUNCED

18.08.2015                     ANITA KAPOOR                            DHARAM PAL

                                       MEMBER                               PRESIDENT

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

                                                         ANITA KAPOOR

                                                          MEMBER