Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/4/2016

Dr. Sarub Bither - Complainant(s)

Versus

Spicejet - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Harsh Chopra

21 Oct 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                         Consumer Complaint No.04 of 2016

                                                                Date of institution:  05.01.2016                         

                                            Date of decision   :  21.10.2016

1. Dr. Saurab Bither, son of Dr. Girish Bither, r/o Bither Hospital, New Flyover Road, Sirhind, Punjab.
2. Dr. Rupika Bither W/o Dr. Saurab Bither, r/o Bither Hospital, New Flyover Road, Sirhind, Punjab.

……..Complainants

Versus

1. Spicejet through Ms. Pratima Rai, Nodal Officer, Spicejet Ltd. 319 Udyog Vihar, Phase IV, Gurgaon-122016, Haryana.
2.  Managing Director, Spicejet Ltd., 319 Udyog Vihar, Phase IV, Gurgaon-122016, Haryana.
3. www.Yatra.com  through authorised signatory Regd. Address 1101,11^th Floor, Tower B, Unitech Cyber Park, Sector-39, Gurgaon-122001.

 

 …..Opposite parties

     

Complaint under Sections 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

Smt. Veena Chahal, Member           

Sh. Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member

         

Present :      Dr. Saurab Bither, Complainant in person.

                   None for OPs No.1 & 2.

                   Sh. Kulwant Singh, Adv.Cl. for OP No.3.

 

 

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                Complainants, Dr. Saurab Bither and Rupika Bitter both residents of Bither Hospital, New Flyover Road, Sirhind, Punjab have filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) under Sections 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.              The complainants along with their family members decided to go on a tour to different places in India and for the said purpose complainant No.1 booked 6 airline tickets (four adults, one child and one infant) of Spicejet flight No."SG 172" Aurangabad to Delhi, for 24 November 2014 through www.yatra.com. The time of departure and arrival for aforesaid flight, as provided at the time of booking, was 12:20 PM from Aurangabad and 02:10 PM at New Delhi, on 24 November 2014. The complainant No.1 paid Rs.14,395/- for booking the said tickets through net banking, vide Yatra Reference Number-01081489230 and Invoice Number-AI/14-15/R10859033. The complainants planned their entire itinerary and made further return travel arrangement for themselves and family members, who had to travel from New Delhi to Sirhind, Punjab via Ambala. The complainants also got railway tickets booked of Amritsar Shatabdi 12013 from 04:30 PM vide transaction ID:100000108731924 and PNR No.2464861760 for Rs.2182.47. Thereafter on 05.11.2014, it was intimated to the complainant No.1 that the name of Flight No."SG 172" has been changed to "SG 173". However, no intimation as to change of the time for the new/changed flight was provided to the complainants.  Thereafter on 20 November 2014, when the complainants were in Mumbai, they were utterly shocked to be informed by an SMS/Text Message and email that the time of the flight No.173 has been changed and now it will depart at 03:35 PM on 24.11.2014 instead of 12:20 PM. After the said change the flight was scheduled to arrive at New Delhi at 05:35 PM instead of 02:10 PM. This not only disturbed the whole itinerary of the complainants but also put them in lot of distress. There was no reason given for changing the flight timings. Thereafter on the same day, the complainants sent 2 emails to the officials of the OPs wherein they disclosed their problem and requested that either they should be provided some alternate travel arrangement, so as to enable them to keep up with their originally planned activity and/or to arrange for further travel from Delhi onwards. In addition to the said emails, complainants also made repeated phone calls to the OPs on customer care helpline numbers but there was no response. This shows the callous, casual and negligent attitude of the OPs. On the next day i.e. 21.11.2014, complainant No.1 gave his feedback on OPs website: www.spicejet.com, whereby he described his problem but again there was no response from OPs. The complainants again emailed OPs on 22.11.2014 but in vain.  The complainants had to alter their itinerary, which affected whole of their schedule, planning and further programmes. Complainant No.1 had to cancel his earlier booked train tickets, and incurred Rs.582.47 for cancellation of the same and made new reservations for the railway tickets from New Delhi to Chandigarh and paid Rs.2562.47.  Thereafter on 24.11.2014, complainant No.1 met Mr. Swapnil Harkal, official of Spicejet and made a written complaint and also forwarded the emails to the said official, which he had sent earlier.  But no solution was provided for addressing complainants' problem. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service as the complainants and their family members had to bear unnecessary inconvenience, hardship and mental agony in addition to the losses and extra charges. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to pay Rs.582.47/- for cancellation of rail tickets; Rs.2562.47/- for rail tickets from New Delhi to Chandigarh; Rs.4000/- for taxi ride; Rs.24,000/- for loss of dental practice; Rs.2,000/- for unearned leave and Rs.2,50,000/- for mental agony, hardship and unnecessary inconvenience along with interest.

3.             The complaint is contested by the OPs.  In reply to the complaint OPs No.1 and 2, who filed the joint written reply, raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the present complaint is not maintainable as the same is false, frivolous and misconceived and has been filed just to extract unjustified money from it;  the compliant is liable to be dismissed in view of the provisions contained in Rule 19 of the Chapter XI of the notification regarding Application of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 and this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. As regards to the facts in the complaint, OPs No.1 and 2 stated that as per the terms of carriage, which is binding contract between the parties, OPs are not responsible for further/onwards journeys of the passengers on account of delay/cancellation of the flight. It is further stated that when OPs came to know about the allocation of the timing to it by the concerned authorities, the change in time was communicated to the complainant and other passengers. The passengers have travelled safely from Aurangabad to Delhi, there was a minor delay in flight, less than 2 hours, which was due to change in schedule and grant of separate time slot by the concerned authorities. The said delay was not in the power and control of the OPs and it is not in the hands of the airline to choose the timings as per its wish and will.  It was communicated to the passengers that the time has been changed on account of winter schedule coming in effect.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 and 2. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             In reply to the complaint OP No.3 stated that it is a company that enables its users to book travel tickets, by coordinating various services from various third party service providers. OP No.3 is not the principal service provider, and that the actual services are provided by OPs No.1 and 2. It is further stated that OP No.3 is merely a ticketing agent of OPs No. 1 & 2, whose authority is limited to issuing of tickets and nothing more, and as such, it cannot be held responsible for the acts and omissions done by OPs No. 1 &2.  It is settled principle of law that an agent cannot be held liable for any act or omission of the principle and more so when the subject matter or cause of action has no relation to the ambit or scope of the agent's authority.  It is further stated that the complainants himself boarded the allegedly renumbered and rescheduled flight provided to him and his family by OPs No.1 & 2 and it had neither any knowledge nor any role to play in the alleged renumbering and rescheduling. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. After denying the other averments made in the complaint OP No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua it.

5.             In order to prove their case, the complainants tendered in evidence copy of e-ticket Ex. C-1, copy of electronic reservation slip Ex. C-2, copy of email from OPs regarding change of timing Ex. C-3, copies of email sent by complainant No.1 to OPs Ex. C-4 and C-5, copy of electronic reservation slip Ex. C-6, copy of email dated 24.11.2014 Ex. C-7, copy of legal notice Ex. C-8, copy of postal receipts Ex. C-9 to C-11, copy of spicejet flights schedule Ex. C-12, affidavit of complainant No.1 Ex. C-13 and closed the evidence. OPs no. 1 & 2 despite taking several adjournments failed to tender their evidence and the same was closed by order of this Forum.   In rebuttal OP No.3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Abhay Nath Ex. OP3/1 and closed the evidence.

6.             The complainant has submitted that due to non intimation of delay in time of the flight, he alongwith his family member had to undergo immense mental as well as physical harassment. It was intimated to him on 05.11.2014 regarding the change of name of flight but no intimation was given regarding the change of time on the said date. The OPs informed the complainant on 20.11.2014 through SMS/Text Message and email that the time of the flight No.173 has been changed and now it will depart at 03:35 PM on 24.11.2014 instead of 12:20 PM. After the said change the flight was scheduled to arrive at New Delhi at 05:35 PM instead of 02:10 PM. This not only disturbed the whole itinerary of the complainants but also put them in lot of distress. He pleaded that no justified reason was given for changing the flight timings. He further pleaded that on the very same day, he sent emails to the officials of the OPs wherein he disclosed his problem and requested that either they should be provided some alternate travel arrangement, so as to enable them to keep up with their originally planned activity or to arrange for further travel from Delhi onwards. He argued that the OPs did not bother to accommodate the complainants thus they deserve to be compensated for the act and conduct of the OPs.

7.             On the other hand, OP no.1 & 2 has pleaded in their written version that passengers have travelled safely from Aurangabad to Delhi, there was a minor delay in flight, less than 2 hours, which was due to change in schedule and grant of separate time slot by the concerned authorities. It has further been pleaded that the said delay was not in the power and control of the OPs and it is not in the hands of the airline to choose the timings as per its wish and will. It is also pleaded that the delay was communicated to the passengers that the time has been changed on account of winter schedule coming in effect.

8.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP no.3 submitted that the OP is only a booking agent thus it has no role with regard to flight schedules or operation. He prayed for dismissal the present complaint qua OP no.3.

9.              We have heard and gone through the evidence, pleadings, written submission alongwith with oral submissions, it is established from the material placed on record by the complainant that there was a delay and OP no.1 & 2 did not come forward to help or solve their problem despite communication from the side of the complainants. It is also established that no efforts were made by OP no. 1 & 2 to arrange for transportation for the complainants from New Delhi onwards. OPs no. 1 & 2 in their written version in preliminary objections para no.2 has reproduced the clause where in it is stated “Spicejet will try to assist you to get to your destination, but will not be liable in any way for the delay or cancellation”. The aforesaid reproduced lines clearly establishes that it was the duty of OP no.1 & 2 to try to assist the complainants but OP no.1 & 2 failed to provide any kind of assistance despite requests made by the complainants.

10.                    Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussions, we are of the opinion that OP no.3 had no role with regard to schedules of the flight. We find that OPs no.1 & 2 acted negligently by not trying or providing any kind of assistance to the complainants. Hence we direct OP no.1 & 2 to pay Rs.582.47/- for cancellation of rail tickets; Rs.4000/- for taxi fare from Chandigarh to Sirhind. We also find complainants entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Ten Thousand) as lump sum on account of mental agony alongwith litigation. The present complaint is hereby dismissed qua OP no.3.

11.                    OPs no. 1 & 2 are directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order. In case OP No. 1 & 2 fail to comply with the same, within the stipulated period, the OPs shall be liable to pay 9 % interest per annum on the aforesaid awarded amount till its realization. The present complaint stands accepted.

12.                    The arguments on the complaint were heard on 14.10.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 21.10.2016

                                                                                (A.P.S.Rajput)

                                                                                President

 

(Veena Chahal)

Member

 

(A.B.Aggarwal)

Member