Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/647/2016

Amandeep Singh Bhangu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Spicejet Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Charanpal Singh bagri

03 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/647/2016
Date  of  Institution	:	12/08/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	03/07/2017

 

 

 

 

 

Amandeep Singh Bhangu S/o Sh. Rajinder Singh, R/o H.No.3033, Sector 71, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali.

 

….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

[1]  Spice Jet Limited, through its CEO, #319 Udyog Vihar, Phase VI, Gurgaon – 122 016 (Haryana).

 

[2]  Uniglobe Shergill Travel, through its Prop., SCO 53-55, 1^st Floor, Opp. G.P.O. Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.

 

…… Opposite Parties 

 

 

BEFORE:   MRS.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Rajinder Singh, SPA of Complainant.
For OP No.1	:	Sh. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate.
For OP No.2	:	None.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

          In brief, on 28.05.2015, the Complainant got one air ticket booked of Opposite Party No.1 (Flight No. SG 228),  through Opposite Party No.2, for 02.06.2015, by incurring an amount of Rs.3,000/-, for his travel from Chandigarh to Delhi, so as to reach Delhi Airport to board connected flight from Delhi to Canada (Air Canada 6825) which was scheduled to depart at 1:15 A.M. from Delhi Airport Terminal 3. It has been averred that the said flight was to depart from Chandigarh at 6:35 P.M. on 02.06.2015 and had to reach Delhi at 7:15 P.M. The Complainant reached the Airport well in advance and was also issued boarding pass. At the airport, the Opposite Party No.1 announced that the aforesaid flight would take off 10-15 minutes late than the scheduled time. However, when the said flight could not take off within the extended time, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.1 and explained that he had to reach Delhi within scheduled time as he had to board connected flight from Delhi to Canada. At this, the officials/ representatives of the Opposite Party No.1 assured the Complainant that even if the flight stood cancelled, then they would accommodate him in alternative flight (Flight No. SG 2116) which would take off at 7:50 P.M. on 02.06.2015. It has been alleged that when the said alternative flight also took off from Chandigarh to Delhi, without there being any intimation or information to the Complainant by the Opposite Party No.1, the Complainant protested against the same, but no one heard his genuine claim. Thereafter, at about 8:10 P.M., one message had been displayed that Flight No. SG 228 has been cancelled, due to bad weather. Eventually, the Complainant hired a Taxi, from Chandigarh to board his flight from Delhi, by incurring an amount of Rs.9500/-. However, when the Complainant reached Delhi Airport, the Flight No. Air Canada 6825 had already been taken off. It has been averred that although the Complainant was required to be in Canada on 04.06.2015 for signing a Contract, yet despite his best efforts he could not get another flight from Delhi to Canada to reach there on time and eventually, got air ticket booked with Air Canada for 14.06.2015 from Delhi to Canada (Flight No.6389) by spending an amount of Rs.85,000/-. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the present Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs. 

  

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to the Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case.

 

3.     Opposite Party No.1 in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, has stated that the aircraft could not operate on time, as the ATC (Air Traffic Controller) had not been giving clearance to land the incoming aircraft (which had to in turn fly to Delhi) on account of bad weather. The concerned staff of the answering Opposite Party was constantly in touch with ATC and they were hopeful that they would be able to operate the flight as and when ATC would give clearance and as such, the assurance was being given to the passengers from time to time. It has been asserted that ultimately when ATC did not give clearance, the answering Opposite Party had to announce cancellation of flight in question. However, the entire ticket amount was refunded to all the passengers, through their agents or the card from which the booking was made. It has been urged that no alternative arrangement could be made, as no flight could land or take off from the airport. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.     Opposite Party No.2 in its reply, while admitting the factual aspects of the case, has pleaded that apart from selling the Spice Jet Air Ticket to the Complainant, it has no role to play in the entire episode, as the dispute, if any, was between the Service Provider (Spice Jet Limited) and the Complainant. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.     We have heard the SPA of the Complainant and Ld. Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 and also perused the record, with utmost care and circumspection.

 

7.     The Opposite Party No.1 in its written version has specifically maintained in para 2 of preliminary objections that one of the clauses of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 stipulates that where bad weather or instances beyond Spicejet control has resulted in flight being cancelled or delayed, they will try to assist the passenger to get to his/her destination, but would not be liable in any way for the delay or cancellation. However, Opposite Party No.1 has miserably failed to produce on record any cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence to substantiate that they had tried to assist the Complainant to get to his destination, resulting into immense, mental and physical harassment to the complainant. Hence, Opposite Party No.1 cannot escape their liability and is liable to compensate the complainant for this negligence. Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against them.

 

8.     In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party No.1 is deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against Opposite Party No.1, and the same is partly allowed, qua it. The Opposite Party No.1 is directed:-

 

[a]  To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony & harassment suffered by the complainant;

                                   

[b]  To pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.

          The complaint against Opposite Party No.2 fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 

9.     The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party No.1; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @9% p.a. on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [b].  

 

10.     The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

03^rd July, 2017                                    Sd/-   

 (SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                                          Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER