Tripura

StateCommission

A/32/2023

Sri Sankar Bhattacharjee - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chief Executive officer (CEO), Go Airlines (India) Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Koushik Pal, Mr. Pritam Deb, MR. R. G. CHAKRABORTY

29 Jul 2024

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Agartala: West Tripura

Case No. A.32 of 2023

 

 

1. Shri Sankar Bhattacharjee,

S/o Late Birendra Chandra Bhattacharjee,

C/o Shri Ajit Debbarma,

Resident of Old Kalibari Lane, Krishnanagar near Advisor Chowmuhani,

P.O. H.P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,

District - West Tripura, Pin - 799001.

.… … … … Appellant/Complainant

 

Vs

 

1. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO),

Go Airlines (India) Pvt. Ltd.,

1^st Floor Wadia International Centre (WIC)

Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Landmark: Near Deepak Talkies, Worlia,

Mumbai, Maharastra - 400025.

 

2. The Director,

Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd. (IRCTC),

Statement House, B-148, 11” Barakhamba Road,

New Delhi, Pin - 110001.

                                                            … … … … Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

 

 

 

Before

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arindam Lodh

President, State Commission

 

Smt. Daliya Saha

Member, State Commission

 

Shri Jhantu Debnath

Member, State Commission

 

 

 

 

Present:

For the Appellant:                                                           Mr. Kaushik Paul, Adv.

For the Respondent No.1:                                               Absent.

For the Respondent No.2:                                               Mr. Arindam Roy, Adv.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment:                        29.07.2024.

 

 

J U D G M E N T [ORAL]

Heard Mr. Kaushik Paul, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, Shri Sankar Bhattacharjee. Also heard Mr. Arindam Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2, Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd. (in short, IRCTC). None appears on behalf of the respondent no.1, Go Airlines (India) Pvt. Ltd. despite receipt of notice.

2. The case of the appellant-complainant is that, he purchased an air ticket to travel to Prot Blair by Go Airlines (India) Pvt. Ltd. from Kolkata paying a sum of Rs.7,545/-, but before five days of the scheduled date of departure, the respondent no.1, Go Airlines (India) Pvt. Ltd. (for short, Go Airlines) informed him that the flight was cancelled and it refunded the said amount of Rs.7,545/- to the appellant.
3. The grievance of the appellant is that in terms of the guidelines of Civil Aviation, the concerned airline has to inform about cancellation of flight at least two weeks before the scheduled date of departure. Another grievance of the appellant-complainant is that, due to such cancellation of the flight, the complainant-appellant had to purchase air tickets by paying an amount of Rs.23,801/- for his travelling purpose in between Kolkata to Port Blair. After returning to Agartala the appellant-complainant claimed the difference amount of the air tickets, but it was denied by the respondent no.1, Go Airlines.
4. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant-appellant filed a complaint application before the learned District Commission, West Tripura, Agartala.
5. The respondent no.1, Go Airlines appeared and contested the application. The parties had adduced their evidences. On consideration of the materials on record, the learned District Commission rejected the claim of the complainant-appellant, since the respondent no.1, Go Airlines had refunded the actual amount of the air ticket for his travelling from Kolkata to Port Blair.
6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order of the learned District Commission, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal before this Commission.
7. Mr. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant due to sudden cancellation of the scheduled flight had to buy air ticket for his travelling from Kolkata to Port Blair at Rs.23,801/-, paying an extra amount of Rs.16,256/-.
8. Mr. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2, IRCTC submits that they provided adequate service to the appellant-complainant and there was no deficiency in service on their part.
9. We have perused the findings of the learned District Commission rejecting the claim of the appellant-complainant. Having considered the materials on record and submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the opinion that the respondent no.1, Go Airlines is liable to pay the difference amount of Rs.16,256/- to the appellant, Shri Sankar Bhattacharjee.
10. Having perused the records, we find that the respondent no.1, Go Airlines had taken the plea of force measure for cancellation of their scheduled flight from Kolkata to Port Blair on the stipulated date, but during recording of evidence, they could not justify what was the circumstance of cancellation of the flight. According to us, mere taking the plea of force measure is not sufficient. They have to explain the unavoidable circumstances or any other circumstances forcing them to cancel the flight which is absent here. It is further revealed that on the same date flights of other airlines had travelled from Kolkata to Port Blair.
11. Moreover, as per Civil Aviation Guidelines of the Government of India, particularly, Clause 3.3.2 of Section 3, the airlines shall also be liable to pay compensation to the travelers. Since, the respondent no.1-Go Airlines failed to explain the circumstances under which the flight was cancelled, they are liable to pay adequate compensation for their failure to render proper service to the appellant-complainant.
12. Accordingly, we direct the respondent no.1, Go Airlines (India) Pvt. Ltd. to pay the differential amount of Rs.16,256/- to the appellant-complainant. The respondent no.1 is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the appellant. Lastly, we find that the appellant-complainant unnecessarily has been dragged into the litigation for which he is entitled to get the cost of litigation. Accordingly, the respondent no.1, Go Airlines is directed to pay cost of Rs.20,000/- to the appellant-complainant. In total the respondent no.1, Go Airlines shall have to pay Rs.16,256/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.20,000/- = Rs.46,256/- to the appellant-complainant within a period of 30 days from today.
13. It is made clear that respondent no.2-IRCTC is not liable to pay any cost or compensation to the appellant-complainant.

With the above observations and directions, the instant appeal stands allowed. Consequently, the impugned judgment dated 26.04.2023 passed by the learned District Commission, West Tripura, Agartala in connection with Case No.C.C.07 of 2021 stands set aside and quashed.