REKHA GUPTA

                Revision Petition no. 2076 of 2013 has been filed against the order dated 12.12.2012 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (‘the State Commission) in First Appeal no. 145 of 2008.

2.     Brief facts of the case as per the respondents/ complainants are that respondent no. 1 was the Manager Personal, PUNSUP, Chandigarh and respondent no. 2  was the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Patiala.  On December 20, 2006, the respondents got two air tickets booked for 03.01.2007 for their air travel from Mumbai to Delhi. The respondents were given tickets for flight no. DN 660 and for these two tickets the respondents had made a payment of Rs.9930.40.  The flight was to depart from Mumbai at 08.20 A M and reach Delhi Airport at 10.30 A M on 03.01.2007. Unfortunately, the petitioner/ opposite party cancelled the tickets unceremoniously on 03.01.2007 and sent an SMS at 02.40 AM to the respondents that the flight was cancelled.

3.     The respondents were required to be at Patiala on 03.01.2007 before 04.00 pm, since the respondent no. 1 being at that time posted as Additional Chief Administrator, PUDA, Patiala and had an urgent meeting with the Omaxe Group regarding very significant agenda. Due to the urgency of their situation the respondents reached the airport at 07.00 am in the morning to reschedule and arrange an alternative ticket on Air Deccan Airlines. However, they were informed about the non-availability of the tickets till 05.01.2007. Not only that, the petitioner refused to refund the amount of the cancelled tickets on frivolous and baseless grounds.

4.     The respondents were left with no other option but to book themselves two tickets for 03.01.2007 with Kingfisher Airlines. The respondents were forced to waste one full day. The flight which was available was to depart from Mumbai at 1830 hours and was to reach New Delhi at 2025 hours on that day. The important meeting with Omaxe Group had to be forgone because of the indifferent attitude, negligent and deficient service on the part of the petitioner. Moreover, the respondents were required to pay an amount of Rs.21,280/- for two tickets. The amount which had already been paid to the Air Deccan was Rs.9930/-. Due to the urgency, the respondents had to pay exorbitant amount for their journey.

5.     The respondent ultimately could reach New Delhi only at 10.30 p m on 03.01.2007. The respondents then had to travel back to Patiala, by road, throughout the night, thus reaching Patiala at 04.30 a m to attend their respective offices on 04.01.2007.

6.     The petitioner/ opposite party in their written statement have stated that every year during the second fortnight of December and first fortnight of January, the weather conditions in entire North India particularly in Delhi are very bad and most of the flights to and fro to Delhi are either cancelled or delayed. Due to bad weather in Delhi on 03.01.2007 the entire flight schedule was disturbed and because of that the respondents flight no. DN 660 from Mumbai to Delhi and Flight no. DN 670 from Delhi to Bangalore were cancelled on the aforesaid date.

7.     The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib Camp at Patiala (‘the District Forum’) vide its order dated 09.01.2008 allowed the complaint and directed that “the opposite party to make the payment of Rs.21,280/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum since 03.01.2007 till realization and also compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs.1000/- as cost of the complaint”.

8.     Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide order dated 12.12.2012 dismissed the appeal stating that there was no scope for interference in the order of the District Forum. The State Commission has held as under:

“9. This argument was not accepted by the learned District Forum rightly so because Ex.C-3 is not a proof of bad whether being internal correspondence between the different offices/officials of the OP themselves. The OP could produce the record from the metrological department to prove bad weather and in its absence could even produce the orders issued by the airport authorities not to allow the airlines to take flight. However, no worthwhile evidence was produced by the OP to prove bad weather and this fact therefore, cannot be presumed to be correct, simply because the flight was cancelled by the OP.

10. Since the flight was cancelled without any just cause and intimation was given very late which reached them at 2:40 a m, compelled the complainants to purchase tickets from some other airlines. Since both the complainants claim to be officials and had to attend their office and it naturally caused harassment and mental tension to them. They had to arrange for alternative flight, the tickets of which they purchased for Rs.21,280/-. The learned District Forum therefore, rightly directed the OPs to pay the said amount which the complainants spent on purchasing the alternative tickets. For the inconvenience and harassment a sum of Rs.50,000/- has been imposed.

11. It is true that the OP was competent to cancel their flights but in doing so they cannot avoid paying compensation to the passengers whom they harassed and caused mental tension. The learned District Forum therefore, rightly allowed the compensation to the complainants and the impugned order is perfectly just and proper. There is no scope for interference. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed.”

9.     Dissatisfied by the order of the State Commission the petitioner Airlines have filed this present revision petition.

10.    We have heard the learned counsels for the petitioner and for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and have carefully gone through the records of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to the rules and regulations whereby the petitioner Airline had specifically laid down a condition in terms and conditions as follows:

        Flight disruptions due to fog and bad weather

For certain months in the year especially Mid-December and Mid-, due to poor visibility, dense fog and bad weather in North India some flights may be cancelled, re-scheduled, indefinitely delayed or diverted to other airfields. These circumstances are completely beyond the control of the airline and are governed by relevant regulatory authorities.

In such cases Air Deccan’s responsibility will be restricted to transporting the passenger only to the destination booked. The airline will not be liable / able to provide alternate transport, accommodation or refreshment at any point in time and the passengers will have to make their own arrangements.

11.    He stated that due to bad weather at Delhi the flight had to be cancelled. He however, could not give any evidence or documents to support his contention that the flight was cancelled due to bad weather and fog in Delhi. There was no report from the meteorological department. Learned counsel for the respondent stated that his client has been put to great inconvenience and harassment due to the cancellation of the flight DN 660 from Mumbai to Delhi. The respondent had to cancel a very important meeting and also had to incur a considerable amount of expenditure to reach Patiala.

12.    We see from the record that on 03.01.2007 at 1.46 A M a message was sent to all the airports stating that “due to fog at Delhi the following sectors are cancelled on 03.01.2007, i.e., DN 670 – Delhi – Bangalore, DN 660 – Mumbai – Delhi”. There is also an e-mail on record from “Robert Rose” to the “legal” which states as follows:

“Due to fog at Delhi on 2^nd January and on the 3^rd January DN 660 was XXLD and on the 3^rd morning in order to rescue passengers from DN 665 on the night of the 2^nd January who had diverted back to Mumbai due to Delhi fog, E-mails relating to this have been forwarded. To make matters better VT ADZ VT ADY were also tech in GAMCO leaving us with no spares”.

13.    It is obvious from this mail that the cancellation of DN 660 was not only due to bad weather at Delhi. The aircraft meant for this flight had been diverted to rescue passengers from DN 665 which was diverted back to Mumbai and there was no availability of aircraft to cater to all the scheduled flights. Further, as per another e-mail on record, full fare was taken and the same was reflected in the system for DN 660 to enable full refund/ free rescheduling. Yet the petitioner has given no evidence to support that they either offered rescheduling or offered full refund on 03.01.2007.

14.        The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed:

“Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums.  The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts.  This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked.  In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed.  It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora.”

15.    Thus, no jurisdictional or legal error has been shown to us to call for interference in the exercise of powers under Section 21 (b) of Act.  The order of the State Commission does not call for any interference nor does it suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity. Thus, the present revision petition is hereby, dismissed.