Haryana

StateCommission

A/1015/2015

SPECIEJET LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUNIL KUMAR BATKOTIA - Opp.Party(s)

AMIT PUNJ

07 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      1015 of 2015

Date of Institution:        30.11.2015

Date of Decision :         07.04.2016

 

Manager, SpiceJet Limited, 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon, Haryana.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

 

Sunil Kumar Bhatotia s/o Sh. Om Prakash Yadav, Resident of Shiv Colony, Behind Ganpati Marbles, Mahendergarh Road, Narnaul, District Mahendergarh, Haryana.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                       

 

Present:              Shri Saurav Sharma, proxy counsel for Shri Amit Punj, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri J.P. Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

SpiceJet Limited-Opposite Party, is in appeal against the order dated July 24^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby complaint filed by Sunil Kumar Bhatotia-complainant, was accepted. For ready reference, the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“1.     To pay Rs.20,000/- to each passenger (the complainant and his wife) as compensation for harassment and mental agony.

2.      To refund the extra amount paid for boarding some other flight to the complainant with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till realization.

3.      To pay Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.”

2.      The complainant booked online two tickets of SpiceJet flights, that is, Flights No.S.G.253 and S.G.254, scheduled from Delhi to Goa and Goa to Delhi, on December 13^th and 17^th, 2014 respectively.  He paid Rs.17,888/- through debit card. On December 13^th, 2014, the complainant and his wife travelled from Delhi to Goa, but on December 17^th, 2014, flight No.S.G.254 from Goa to Delhi, was cancelled due to which the complainant booked tickets in another flight. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before the District Forum.

3.      Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite party at it’s given addresses. The Opposite Party was proceeded ex parte by the District Forum vide order dated April 29^th, 2015 observing as under:-

          “Notice was sent to the opposite party by registered post. As per the report of Assistant a period of more than 30 days has been elapsed. There is presumption of service. The case called several times since morning. It is now 3:10 P.M. Case called again. None appeared on behalf of opposite party. Hence, Opposite Party is proceeded against exparte…..”

         

4.      Perusal of record reveals that on April 29^th, 2015, the District Forum proceeded ex parte against the opposite party, as notice of the complaint was not received back served or unserved and more than one month had passed.  Thus, it becomes clear that on the presumption of service, the District Forum proceeded ex parte against the opposite party.  Since the opposite party was proceeded ex parte before the District Forum and as such it could not contest the complaint on merits. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to give opportunity to the opposite party to contest the complaint on merits.  Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant has fairly conceded that complainant has no objection in granting opportunity to the opposite party to contest the complaint on merits. 

5.      In view of above, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. The opposite party is accorded opportunity to join the proceedings and parties shall be entitled to lead evidence etc.  The case is remitted to the District Forum with the direction to decide the complaint expeditiously preferably within a period of three months, which shall be from the date of first appearance of the parties. 

6.       The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum, Narnaul, on 05.05.2016.

7.      Copy of this order be sent to the District Forum.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 07.04.2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL