Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/317/2016

Bimaljit Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, Spice Jet Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In person

29 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/317/2016
Date  of  Institution	:	06/05/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	29/11/2016

 

 

 

 

 

Bimaljit Kaur W/o Sh. Gurdarshan Singh, R/o Jammu House, Main Road, Mullanpur Garibdass, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.

……… Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1.   The Managing Director, Spice Jet Limited, 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon – 122016, Haryana (India).

 

2.   The Regional Manager, Civil Airlines Terminal, Chandigarh Airport.

……. Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:   SMT.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

 

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Gurdarshan Singh, Authorized Agent.
For Opposite Party No.1	:	Sh. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate.
For Opposite Party No.2	:	Ex-parte.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

          Put in brief, the facts of the case are that the Complainant was returning from Sydney (Australia) to Delhi via Bangkok. On 31.10.2015, she boarded Flight No. TG 323 from Bangkok to Delhi and reached the domestic Airport New Delhi at 11:45 AM to board the Chandigarh bound flight of Opposite Party No.1, which was to depart at 02:13 PM. However, to her surprise, the Opposite Party No.1 changed the flight timings unilaterally and left for Chandigarh at 11:00 A.M. in which the Complainant was supposed to travel. In these circumstances, left with no other alternative, the Complainant had to board a bus to reach Chandigarh. Thereafter, the Complainant served a legal notice dated 01.12.2015 upon the Opposite Parties, inter alia, calling upon them to pay the costs of air tickets from New Delhi to Chandigarh along with damages and legal expenses litigation, but the same failed to fructify. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the present Complaint.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, despite service, nobody has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte.

 

3.      Opposite Party No.1 resisted the complaint by filing its written statement.

 

4.      Opposite Party No.1 in its reply, inter alia, pleaded that the flight in question had been pre-poned and the intimation of the same was provided to the Complainant by way of SMS on her mobile number provided to her and was duly received by her and as such, the allegations leveled by the Complainant in her Complaint are false. Hence, the Opposite Party No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.      The Complainant also filed replication to the written statement filed by the Opposite Party No.1, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Party No.1 have been controverted.

 

6.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

7.      We have heard the Authorized Agent of Complainant and learned counsel for Opposite Party No.1 (Opposite Party No.2 being ex-parte) and have also perused the record.

 

8.      The sole grouse of the Complainant is that she could not catch the flight she wanted to board for Chandigarh from New Delhi, for the reason that the Opposite Parties preponed the same without sending any intimation to her. It was only after inquiring about the flight that the Complainant came to know about the preponing of the flight at the Airport itself. As such, the Complainant could not reach Chandigarh in time as per her schedule. Therefore, the Opposite Parties being deficient in service could not fulfil their duties to inform the Complainant in advance so that she could plan accordingly. It has been contended that due to the careless attitude of the Opposite Parties the Complainant failed to join her duties in time.

 

9.      The stand taken by the Opposite Party No.1 is that the Complainant was duly informed about the preponement of the flight through SMS on her mobile phone which was duly received by her.  

 

10.      Significantly, the Opposite Party No.2 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Party No.2 draws an adverse inference against it. The non-appearance of the Opposite Party No.2 shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted & uncontroverted.

 

11.      After going through the entire evidence on record, we find that the Complainant missed the flight which she booked with the Opposite Party No.1 for her travel from Delhi to Chandigarh. So far as the contention of the Opposite Party No.1 regarding sending intimation to the Complainant through SMS is concerned, we are not satisfied with the same, in as much as, there is nothing on record to show as to when the message was sent and when the same was received by the Complainant. At any rate, the Opposite Party No.1 could not produce any documentary evidence on record which could prove that they had actually sent the requisite information to the Complainant, well in time. Even if so, the Opposite Party No.1 has miserably failed to arrange any alternate arrangement by offering any seat in its subsequent flight or on any other carrier. Hence, deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 is writ large, which certainly caused immense mental and physical harassment to the Complainant.

 

12.      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party No.1 is found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party No.1, and the same is allowed, qua it. The Opposite Party No.1 is directed to:-

 

[a]  To pay the cost of air ticket of Spice Jet Airlines from New Delhi Domestic Airport to Chandigarh Airport;

[b]  To pay Rs.7,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

[c] To pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs of litigation;

 

          The complaint against Opposite Party No.2 fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 

 

13.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party No.1; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @9% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [b] above from the date of institution of this Complaint, till it is paid, apart from complying with the directions mentioned in sub-paras [a] & [c] above. 

 

14.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

29^th November, 2016                                                                    

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

       PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                                                Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER