Haryana

StateCommission

A/837/2016

SPICEJET LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUNIL KUMAR BATKOTIA - Opp.Party(s)

AMIT PUNJ

18 May 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

 

First Appeal No.837 of 2016

Date of the Institution:14.09.2016

Date of Decision:18.05.2017

 

Manager, Spicejet Ltd., 319, Udyog vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon, Haryana.

                                                                             .….Appellant

Versus

Sunil Kumar Bhatotia, S/o Sh.Om Parkash Yadav, R/o Shiv Colony, behind Ganpati Marbles, Mahendergarh Road, Narnaul, Distt. Mahendergarh, Haryana.

                                                                                                .….Respondent

Present:-    Mr.Saurabh Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr.Sunil Yadav, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

 

O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

1.      Manager, Spicejet Ltd. -OP is in appeal against the Order dated 21.07.2016 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby the complaint of Sunil Kumar Bhatotia has been allowed by directing the OP as under:-

1. To pay Rs.20,000/- to each passenger (complainant and his wife) as compensation for mental agony and harassment along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum form the date of filing of the complaint till realization.
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 of the complaint till realization.
3. To pay Rs.5500/- as litigation charges to the complainant.

 

2.      Briefly stated, on 31.07.2014, the complainant booked SpiceJet flight No.s S.G.253 and S.G.254 of the OP for himself and his wife from Delhi to Goa and back and after booking the tickets were confirmed vide confirmation No.B1PIFY and the date of boarding the flight from Delhi to Goa was scheduled for 13.12.2014 and from Goa to Delhi was scheduled for 17.12.2014. The tickets of airlines were booked online and payment of Rs.17888/- was made through credit/debit card from Narnaul. The complainant along with his wife traveled in the above said flight from Delhi to Goa, but the return flight scheduled for 17.12.2014 was cancelled and complainant and his wife had to wait at the airport for a long period. Ultimately, confirmed tickets were cancelled by the OP without any reason and suggested to board some other flight. He had to get Tatkal Booking of some other flight and thus suffered financial loss as well as mental agony. It was the duty of the OP to manage for alternate flight, but failed to do so. Aggrieved against this, he approached the District Forum for compensation of Rs.60,000/- for mental agony and harassment.

3.      Pursuant to notice, the opposite party pleaded that on 31.07.2014, the complainant got booked return tickets to travel from Delhi to Goa and back to Delhi. The tickets were booked for travelling on 31.12.2014 and return journey on 17.12.2014. The return flight SG254 from Goa to Delhi was delayed due to operational reasons i.e. due to technical snag developed in the aircraft and this fact was also conveyed to all the passengers including the complainant through SMS on his mobile etc. The tickets of the complainant were not cancelled and they were No show for the said flight. He is not entitled to get any relief as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

4.      However, the learned District Forum rejected the plea of the OPs and allowed the complaint by awarding the aforesaid relief to the complainant.  

5.      Against the impugned order, the OPs/appellants have filed appeal before us reiterating their pleas as raised before the District Forum.

6.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. In fact, almost whole of the factual position is admitted by appellant as per averments in their reply. Not only that even the appellant has also admitted that the intimation regarding the delay in the flight at earlier stage was given to the passengers simply by informing them that there was a technical snag developed in the aircraft. But, neither in the written reply not at any subsequent stage, the appellant has not disclosed the precise snag, the approximate time within which this was likely to be removed and the ultimate fate of the so called snag i.e. whether removed or not. The mere fact that the respondent and his wife had to board another flight of different Airlines is sufficient evidence to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. The recent policy of the Government of India-Ministry of Aviation provides that the Airlines concerned will be liable to pay compensation for the delayed flight upto Rs.20,000/- per passenger. When the appellant company failed to perform their obligation under the contract, the learned District Forum, Narnaul was competent to award compensation against the OP for deficiency in service. Therefore, we fully agree with the detailed and well reasoned order passed by the learned District Forum and finding no merit in the appeal, dismiss the same with no order as to costs.

5.      Statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.

May 18th, 2017

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

R.K.