1. The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he is an advocate by profession and to finalise a business deal with a Company Director at Chennai on behalf of his client, he had to go to Chennai. Accordingly on 04.05.2018 he booked an air ticket with the Ops to travel in Spicejet from VSP to Chennai and was provided with confirmed ticket bearing number (PNR):G5FUXV on payment of Rs.5593/- for the journey on 05.05.2018 with departure time 09.30 PM and arrival time at Chennai was 11.00 PM. It is submitted that the complainant reached airport in time and tendered documents at boarding pass counter but the man at the counter took 5 minutes time to confirm the boarding as the booking was excess. He took five minutes time in 3 occasions to confirm boarding and finally disappeared. The man again appeared after 30 minutes when the plane had already left the air port and stated that the complainant could not be adjusted due to non availability of seat in the plane for over booking. It is further submitted that the OP.1 offered option for the complainant to travel in other flight available next but the said option was not suitable for the complainant. The complainant stayed at VSP on 05.05.2018 and caught Spicejet flight on next day at 0905 hours but unfortunately he could not meet the Director who had already left his office with some work outside the State after an exhausting wait for the complainant and the complainant returned with empty hands after a lot of expenses. Thus alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops not to adopt unfair trade practice or commit deficiency in service in future and to pay Rs.3.00 lacs towards compensation besides Rs.10, 000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant.
2. The Ops in spite of valid notice neither filed counter nor participated in this proceeding in any manner. Hence they were set exparte. We have heard from the complainant through his A/R and perused the materials on record filed by the complainant.
3. In this case the complainant stated that he purchased an air ticket from the Ops to travel in the Spicejet on 05.05.2018 from Visakhapatnam (VSP) to Chennai vide confirmed ticket Number (PNR): G5FUXV on payment of Rs.5593/- with departure time 09.30 PM from VSP and arrival time at Chennai was 11.00 PM. The complainant has filed copy of air ticket in question and hence purchase of air ticket by the complainant from the Ops is proved. It is further stated that the complainant is an Advocate by profession and to finalise a business deal with a Company Director at Chennai on behalf of his client, he was to go to Chennai. Hence the complainant left Jeypore to VSP early in the morning on 05.05.2018 and reached in time. It is further stated that he reached near boarding pass and tendered the documents but the man at counter requested the complainant to wait for 5 minutes to confirm the boarding as the booking is excess. On reminders, the man at the counter took 5 minutes time on three occasions and finally left the counter. After 30 minutes the man reappeared at the counter when the flight had already left the air port and stated that the complainant could not be adjusted due to non availability of seat in the plane for over booking.
4. The complainant has further stated that the OP.1 offered options for the complainant to travel in other flight available next. The complainant has filed copy of that letter dt.05.05.2018 offering other available opportunities with them. In that letter the OP.1 confirmed the flight ticket of the complainant and provided option to the complainant to travel on Indigo flight to HYD at 22.00 hours and take early morning flight of Spicejet from Hyderabad at 0555 hours with hotel accommodation at HYD or availing accommodation at VTZ and travel on 06th May, 2018 on Spicejet flight SG3612 at 0950 hours. The OP.1 further intimated that due to over booking suitable compensation as per Company policy and DGCA would be offered through their call centre.
5. The complainant has not accepted the offer of OP.1 as the options were not suitable to the complainant. Hence the complainant stayed at VSP on 05.05.2018 and caught Spicejet Flight on next day at 0905 hours. He reached at Company Office at 1.00 PM on 06.05.2018 but the Director had already left his office with a work outside the State after an exhausted waiting for the complainant and hence the complainant returned with empty hands.
6. In absence of counter and participation of Ops in this proceeding the above allegations of the complainant could not be negated in any manner by them and hence the allegation remained unchallenged. When we examined the facts of the case, we would not disagree with what the complainant has stated in his complaint petition. It is such type of conduct which is the subject matter of this case that reflects the unfair and unfriendly attitude of the Ops towards its customer which brings airlines into dispute. In this case the complainant is a genuine ticket holder but the Ops have denied boarding due to over booking. Now question arises as to whether such a practice is without prejudice to the interest of the consumer? The answer is negative and if a free hand practice of over booking is allowed, it may cause havoc against the interest of the ticket holders as the air lines may invoke malpractice of over booking indiscriminately and beyond reasonable dimensions. Hence there would not be any meaning of refunds or cancellation beyond the tickets of boarding denied passenger. Therefore, in our opinion over booking of tickets and denial of boarding leads to indiscipline and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops.
7. Further in this case the complainant by its own arrangements reached the destination but according to him, he could not succeed to meet the Company Director and thus his mission failed due to such inaction of the Ops and the complainant suffered harassments. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for due compensation. Before examining the question of award of compensation to the complainant it needs little emphasis that the CP Act was envisaged as a special social welfare legislation to protect the consumer rights unlike other legislations that create dispute resolution mechanism between the consumers and the large trades/service providers. While awarding compensation, we are to take into account all relevant factors and assess compensation on the basis of accepted legal principles. In this case, non granting of boarding pass in spite of valid ticket leads to unfair trade practice and unfair trade practice as we hold taking all aspects of the case into consideration. Further the offers of the Ops were not acceptable to the complainant. In the above facts and circumstances, the complainant is certainly entitled to get back the cost of the ticket at Rs.5593/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of purchase i.e. 04.05.2018. Taking an overall view of the matter, in our view, ends of justice would be sub served if a lump sum compensation of Rs.50, 000/- is awarded in favour of the complainant besides a sum of Rs.5000/- towards cost of this litigation.
8. Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Ops being jointly and severally liable are directed to refund Rs.5593/- towards cost of air ticket with interest @ 12% p.a. from 04.05.2018 and to pay Rs.50, 000/- towards compensation besides a sum of Rs.5000/- towards cost of this litigation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.
(to dict.)
