IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.
CONSUMER CASE NO. : 19/S/2009 DATED : 09.09.2009.
BEFPRE PRESIDENT : SMT. ANITA DEBNATH,
Ex-Member of W.B. Higher Judicial Services and
Addl. Dist. & Session Judge,
President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.
MEMBER : SMT. PRATITI BHATTACHARJEE.
COMPLAINANT : MISS REEMA KUMARI,
C/O. Raghunath Fertilizer Pvt. Ltd.,
S.P. Mukherjee Road Bye Lane,
Near Arogya Niketan Nursing Home,
Khalpara, P.O. & P.S. Siliguri,
Dist. Darjeeling (W.B.).
O.P. 1) : THE DIRECTOR,
Spice Jet Ltd.,
319, Udyog Vihar, Phase IV,
GURGAON 122 016,
Haryana (India).
Proforma O.P. 1) : JAISWAL TRAVELS,
S.P. Mukherjee Road,
P.O.- Siliguri – 734 405,
Dist.- Darjeeling.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Sri Manik Chand Verma, Advocate.
FOR THE OP : Self.
J U D G E M E N T
The brief case of the complainant is that she is a student studying in Bangalore.
The OP is the Director of Spice Jet Ltd. which is engaged in airlines business and carrying passengers from one place to another by its flights. The complainant purchased one ticket through Jaiswal Travels, the Proforma OP for Flight SG 527 of 04.01.08 in her name Miss Kumari R. through e-mail vide confirmation No. ID 89 EN on 12.12.09 by paying Rs.5,108/-.
On the date of traveling i.e. on 04.01.09 when she reached the counter of Spice Jet Ltd. at Dumdum in time presented the said e-mail ticket along with her photo ID for
Contd…P/2
-:2:-
obtaining her boarding pass but the officer concerned of the said counter refused to issue her boarding pass on the ground of not matching with the name in the Photo ID and e-mail ticket of Spice Jet. It has been further stated that as her name in the ticket did not match with the name in the Photo ID it was not possible for him to allow checking due to security norms.
The complainant’s further case is that on the self same date i.e. 04.01.09 she was allowed to use the Decan Airlines on the strength of same ID standing in the name of Reema Kumari from Bagdogra to Dumdum. As the boarding pass was not issued in her favour she could not reach at Bangalore in time. As a result of which she sustained a severe loss in her studies. Even she had to stay at Kolkata in a hotel for which she had to incur a lot of money for her staying at hotel. Due to non allow her to avail the flight she suffered mental loss and agony for which she issued a notice to the OP about the refusal of journey but no response was given on the part of the OP. Even by their letter they refused to compensate for their fault. So, the OP is liable to return the value of the ticket amounting to Rs.5,108/- and for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with cost of the instant case. Hence, this case supported by affidavit.
The OP No.1 contested the case by putting W.V. denying each and every allegation as made therein with a specific defence that the complainant never came to the desk of the said Spice Jet to obtain any boarding pass. It is further alleged that from the ticket it is apparent that her name has been mentioned as R. Kumari whereas her complete name is Reema Kumari. Since there was a discrepancy in the name of the complainant as well as that of the ticket possible the CISF Personnel did not allow her to enter the Air Port on the basis of the e-ticket. It is the duty of the security for the purpose of stringent security measure the CISF Personnel only allow those persons to enter the Airport upon proof of valid identity card in consonance with the particulars appearing on the e-mail ticket. R. Kumari may be names of different persons. So, the OP had/has no fault on their part not to enter the complainant concerned due to non-matching of name with the ID card and the e-mail ticket. Even when the complainant did not enter inside the campus within the scheduled time her name was repeatedly announced then she was declared “not shown”. When there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs complainant is not entitled to get any decree and the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
Upon consideration of the pleadings of the respective parties the following points are to be determined for ascertaining the controversies involved in the instant case :-
Contd…P/3
-:3:-
- Is the case maintainable ?
- Is there any deficiency on the part of the OPs ?
- Is the complainant entitled to get compensation as claimed for ?
- To what other relief/reliefs as claimed for ?
Point No.1
This point has not been pressed by the parties at the time of final hearing. But on careful scrutinizing the fact as contended by the complainant is that the refusal of availing the flight of Spice Jet on the date of occurrence dated 04.01.08 despite having confirmed ticket on e-mail. When there was allegation of refusal on the plea of security norms and when such service was allegedly denied for availing the specific Spice Jet on the schedule date and time the complainant can be considered as a consumer as provide under Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986 and the nature of the dispute also comes within the purview of 2(1)(e) of the said Act, 1986 therefore, the case is maintainable in law.
The issue is thus disposed in favour of the complainant.
Point No.2 – 4
The complainant or the OP did not chose to lead evidence on affidavit. But both of them submitted written argument in support of their defence. The sole contention of the complainant is that she was not allowed to avail the trip by air flight despite having valid confirmed ticket in her favour. In support of her claim she furnished several documents namely confirmed ticket from Kolkata to Bangalore dated Friday, 04.01.08 under Flight SG 527. The said ticket ‘Annexure-A’ goes to show that it stands in the name of Kumari r, Akbar Travels on line, 1st floor, 62- Janjikar Street, Mumbai, ma 400 003, India. So, according to the said ticket the traveler is Kumari R. Such confirmed ticket further goes to show that ticket price which was given and or paid is Rs.5,091/-. Annexure-B is the Passengers details stands in the name of MS KUMARI R. There is reflection in the said Annexure -’B’ that she was denied checking due to security norms named in the ticket was not matching with the Photo ID Card. Another ticket issued by Air Deccan Net stands in the name of R. Kumari under Flight No.DN 776 dated 04.01.08 from IXB to CCU (Vide Annexure – ‘C’). the notice dated 04.02.08 issued to the OP by Rema Kumari intimating about the harassment as faced by her due to non-allowing her to avail the flight despite having valid confirmation ticket. Annexure- ‘E’ also a legal
Contd…P/4
-:4:-
notice wherein she asked for compensation due to harassment as made by the OP. Annexure-‘F’ is the reply to the letter dated 04.02.08 issued by the complainant herself to the OP wherein it has been categorically stated that guest did not reported for checking. Guest and travel Agents are advised that the full names of the traveling passengers are to be mentioned. It has been further contended that they released the guests and allow them to travel after checking the requisite documents and verification. It has been further contended that a credit cell for the passengers service fee for Rs.225/- and the said amount may be adjusted in any booking with them within a year from the date of travel. Ultimately legal notice was issued on 05.04.08.
Xerox copy of Identity card issued by B. M. J. College, V.V. Puram Road, Bangalore has also been furnished to support her case as to that she was the traveler of the Spice Jet by valid confirmation ticket (Annexure-‘J’_.
Admittedly, the complainant possess a valid confirmed ticket for her journey Kolkata to Bangalore under Spice Jet dated 04.01.08.
The Ld. Advocate on behalf of the complainant placed a Xerox copy of consumer Protection Digest for the year 1991 – 1998 Vol.-II wherein it has been laid down that under the caption 26 trip cancelled issued to OP’s negligence. It has been laid down in the case of J.M., Southern Railway Vs. R.K. Iyer, 1992 (ii) C.P.R. 17, Kerala wherein it has been laid down that he can claim compensation or damages on the ground that he was forced to travel a portion of the journey due to fault of railway administration. In this case the Respondent claimed the refund of the ticket fare of the traveled portion and the District Forum held that he can not claim the refund of that amount but at the same time District Forum allowed a compensation for a sum of Rs.750/- as the Section 14 (1)(d) of the C.P. Act the District Forum has such power and discretion to grant compensation where the complainant has suffered loss or injury due to the proof of negligence on the OP. By that copy the entire facts of the case has not been described therein. But only it can be ascertained due to the negligence on proof such compensation was allowed by the Ld. District Forum.
On the other hand it is urged on behalf of the OP that during security check up when the identity card as placed by the traveler and when the said name has not been matched with the ticket in question purchased by way of net facility she has not been allowed to enter inside the campus giving boarding pass in her favour and when the traveler concerned was disallowed on the point of security norms the OP has no role to play in this regard. Therefore, the case does not lie and the deficiency of service on their
Contd…P/5
-:5:-
part has not been proved and the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation as prayed for. But Govt. charges for Rs.225/- which is to be deposited on the Govt. head that may be refundable only if there be such any order or there any claim thereof.
It has already been pointed it out that the traveler/the complainant was denied at the point of checking due to security norms and name in the ticket was not matching with the Photo ID card.
- In the instant case it is not the case of the complainant that despite disclosing her full name computerized ticket was issued in the name of Kumari R from the counter under the control of the Proforma Opposite Party.
In this regard the complainant’s case is that she was allowed to avail flight in Air Deccan from Bagdogra to Kolkata on the strength on production of similar types of ticket standing in the name of Miss R. Kumari.
ii) It is also not the case of the complainant that save and except production of the I.D. card she produced other documents to show that R. Kumari and Reema Kumari are same and identical person. Even then she was not allowed on the point of security check up.
Let us now consider the documents as placed for appreciation.
Description of the traveler Kumari R as mentioned in the ticket in question (annexure-A) has already been reflected above. Whereas Photo I.D card goes to show there is specific description of the traveler concerned as to Reema Kumari, D/O Sri Pradip Kr. Agarwal, Raghunath Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd., S.P. Mukherjee Road, Khalpara, Siliguri – 734005.
So, it is evident on comparison of the ticket in question and the Photo I. D. card addresses are not same and identical. Further more father’s name has also not been mentioned in the ticket in question.
Security is the prime consideration in a flight journey. Not only the Govt. property but also the lives of the other travelers and employees concerned are to be considered. If both the documents in question be considered minutely it can be ascertained that Kumari R and Reema Kumari can not be considered same and identical. The abbreviation “R” may be stood of names of different persons.
It is further to be considered here that the complainant described herself Reema Kumari in the manner in matching with the I.D. Photo card. But the same address has not been given at the time of obtaining the ticket by way of net facility and it has not been
Contd…P/6
-:6:-
explained as to why the different address was given therein. It is to be noted here that the said complainant put her signature as Reema Agarwal. So, all these discrepancies are apparent. When there is such discrepancy for the safety and security of the human lives as well as Govt. property security check up is the prime consideration and it may be denied for the sake of security and thereby we do not find any irregularities as complained of.
Further, it has not been alleged that due to connivance or collusion in between the OP No.1 & OP no.2 such type of ticket was issued describing the complainant as Kumari R against her protest or consent in order to deprive the complainant for her legitimate claim of availing air flight with Spice Jet despite having valid confirmed ticket.
The decision as relied by the Ld. Advocate on behalf of the complainant is not applicable in the instant case.
Considering all the facts and circumstances and reasons as made hereinbefore and also considering the materials as placed for our consideration, we are of the view that when question of security is involved and when the description of the complainant in terms of the ticket with the Photo I.D. card are different the claim of the complainant is not sustainable in according with law and deficiency of service has also not been proved so, the complainant is not entitled to get any amount as sought for.
Refund of the alleged sum of Rs.225/- towards Government tax also not refundable in the light of our reasons as made hereinbefore.
Thus the issues are decided against the complainant.
Hence, it is,
O R D E R E D
that the Consumer Case No.19/S/2009 is dismissed on contest but without cost.
Let Xerox copies of this Judgement and Order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
-Member- -President-
