1. This is an application under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 of Shri Ashok Kumar Mukherjee and his wife Smt. Rubi Mukherjee (i.e. the complainants) for compensation of Rs. 6262.00 (i.e. the price of the ticket) + Rs. 20000.00 totaling Rs. 26262.00 from the Opposite Party (i.e. the Spice Jet).
2. The Complainants being senior citizens set itinerary for London tour in August 2017. They wanted to reach London by air via Delhi and Kuwait. For the first leg of journey (i.e. from Kolkata to Delhi) they availed of the flight being No. SG-254 of the O.P. on 01.08.2017. After returning Kolkata they raised some grievances against the OP. Their main grievance it is that they had to wait for about 3 hours at Damdam Airport since the flight (i.e. SG-254) took off at about 8.40 p.m. in stead of 5.35 pm. Their written request to the O.P. made on 12.03.18 for compensation went in vain. In reply to the complainants' letter dated 12.03.2018 the O.P. simply issued a letter by mail asking them to accept credit voucher worth Rs. 1000.00 per passenger (which could be used for future travel by Spice Jet Ltd.). This is why they have sued the O.P. for compensation Rs. 26262/-.
3. In support of their case the complainants have got the complaint treated as evidence and filed the following documents :-
- The letter dated 12.03.2018 exposing their grievance for the late departure of the flight and seeking compensation for deficiency of service
- The copy of ticket (PNR No. SYFF8T) for Delhi-bound flight of the O.P. which was scheduled to take off at 5.35 pm on 01.08.2017 actually left Damdam Airport at about 8.40 p.m being No. SG 254
- The copy of letter dated 17.07.2017 which was issued by the O.P. assuring the complainants that wheel chair would be provided at Delhi airport if approached. .
- Their letter dated 08.08.2017 addressed to the Customer Relation Department of Spice Jet seeking compensation of Rs. 17692.00/- for not providing them wheelchair at Delhi Airport;
4. The O.P. has neither appeared to contest the case nor filed any written version for that end. This is why the case was heard exparte.
5. The prime point which is required to be decided here is whether there was any deficiency on the part of the O.P. in rendering service to the complainants.
6. Interestingly, the written argument submitted by the Complainants carries an additional case of harassment related to non-supply of wheel chair at Delhi Airport for which damages have been sought for – although no such case and no such prayer for relief were incorporated in the complainant.
7. As per written argument, the complainants were infirm due to age and they had to put up with huge inconvenience while moving from one terminal to another at Delhi Airport without wheelchairs. It is also mentioned therein that OP abstained from parting with the same in violation of its promise made under letter dated 17.07.2017 – for doing so. It has been contended thereby that such omission is tantamount to defficiency in service for which damages are recoverable from the O.P. The written argument also bears mention of the fact they submitted an application on 08.08.2017 seeking compensation of Rs. 17692.00 for withdrawal of wheelchair which eventually called for no action.
There is no denying the fact that they were senior citizens and wheelchairs were not made available to them at Delhi Airport. The letter dated 17.07.2017 appears to be bearing an assurance that wheel chairs would be provided to them and for getting the same the complainants would get in touch with the Airport Staff. But there is nothing on record to show that complainants actually got in touch with those staff or not. No where it has been mentioned that they really approached the Airport Staff or that the Airport Staff refused to provide them with wheelchair in utter disregard of complainants' request. As such, it can not be said that there was a clear-cut violation of assurance or promise on the part of the O.P. At the same time it can not be opined that the OP neglected to supply wheelchair to the deserving passengers to render their journey hassle- free. Further more, the written argument in relation to wheel chair turns out to be wholly inconsistent with the recitals of the complaint. The complaint is silent on this point. Therefore the wheelchair-episode as unfolded in the written argument can safely be ignored.
8. Let us now advert to the case for compensation for delayed departure of the flight from Damdam airport.
Undoubtedly, the flight was late in taking off on 01.08.2017 ensuring its passengers to wait at the airport for 3 hours (i.e. from 5.35 to 8.40 p.m.). The complainants were intimated via SMS at about 6.20 that for operational reasons the flight would depart at about 8 P.M. The flight finally took off at 8.40. It was subsequently divulged by the O.P. that 'unavoidable circumstances' were the reasons for such delay. The complainants have defined the same. The complainants have not also put blame, for this, upon the O.P. on the ground of negligence. It may be, as such, presumed that the delay was unavoidable and incidental one. The O.P. failed to avoid the same in spite of having exercised due diligence.
Normally the delay of this sort might have resulted from various circumstances, such as - weather complication, mechanical fault, operational reasons etc. Something more is required to be proved to render its passengers eligible for compensation.
9. Again, it is not the case that in consequence of such delay the Complainants missed any connecting flight or had to sustain any loss or injury. They reached London at scheduled time by utilizing the tickets purchased to perform the three-leg journey. The length of time required for journey from Damdam Airport to London did not sustain any extension as well. The purpose of visiting London was fulfilled. There is hardly any ground for granting damages for the unavoidable and incidental delay in giving start to the flight at Damdam Airport.
10. Hence it is ordered -
that the case be and the same is dismissed ex parte, but without costs.
Let a plain copy of this order/judgment be given to the party as per CPR, 2005.
Dictated & Corrected by
Hon’ble Mr. Lakshmi Kanta Das,
President
