Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/15/976

Nitin Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director Spicejet Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Nitin Singh

31 May 2018

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 18.05.2015

                                                      Disposed on: 31.05.2018

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027    

 

 

CC.No.976/2015

DATED THIS THE31^stMAY OF2018

PRESENT

 

 

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

 

	Complainant/s	V/s	Opposite party/s
	Nitin Singh, A-807, Daadys Elixir Apartment, Kammasandra Village, E-City Post, Bangalore   In person	1	The Managing Director, Spicejet Limited., Kamaraj Domestic Terminal, Chennai Airport, Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600027.
		2	The Manager Director, Spicejet Limited., No.10, Kempegowda International Airport, Sulibele Road, Shanthinagar, Devanahalli, Bangalore-562110.   By.Adv.Bojanna K.J.

 

PRESIDENT: SRI.S.L.PATIL

1.       This complaint has been filed by the complainant as against the opposite parties directing to pay Rs.46,909/-, to pay Rs.60,000/-  towards the mental agony, to pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of this litigation.

2.       The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that the Complainant booked flight tickets with the Opposite Party for March 2^nd, 2015, flight number SG 3146/SG 274, set to depart to 7.40 hours, from Bangalore to Chennai and from Chennai to Port Blair, for himself, his wife and his Children and paid Rs.35,843/- towards it on 1.1.2015. The Complainant submits that he had made onward bookings for his holiday at Andaman and Nicobar Islands and spent a hefty amount for the same. He received a message of cancellation of the flight of the Opposite Party merely 10 hours before the time of departure of the flight. Thus, he was shocked and dejected at the prospect of missing out on his holiday and the foreseeable financial loss of his bookings. He had to book an alternate flight with Jet Airways and paid Rs.82,752/- towards booking. Eventually, the Complainant and his family had to face a lot of mental stress, agony and financial loss due to the untimely cancellation and response of the Opposite Party. The Complainant had to bear unwanted financial loss due to the untimely response of the Opposite Party, spent a lot of money due to this cancellation and booking a flight at the last moment. The Complainant ended up spending double the amount of money spent on the original booking of the flight of the Opposite Party. Even though the Complainant received a refund of amount of Rs.35,843/- on 18.3.2015 from the Opposite Party, the Complainant still suffers a loss of Rs.46,909/- (Rs.85,752 - Rs.35,843) i.e. the balance amount of the Jet Airways booking. The Complainant after being disregarded by the Opposite Party also wrote a letter dt.24.3.2015 to amicably resolve the dispute stating the assurances made by them and their false affirmations, but the Complainant did not receive any positive response from the Opposite Party. The Complainant was finally forced to file this complaint. On account of the fraudulent and faulty services on the Opposite Party’s part, the Complainant suffered loss due to mental agony and financial loss.  In this manner, the Opposite Party has compelled the Complainant to redress his grievances before the Consumer Forum. Hence, this complaint.

3.       Notice was ordered issue to the Opposite Parties who did appear and filed the version denying the allegations made by the Complainant against them.

4.       The sum and substance of the version filed by the Opposite Party are that the complaint filed by the Complainant is not maintainable in as much as even no cause of action has arisen in favour of the Complainant and against the Opposite Party for filing the complaint by them.  The Opposite Party submits that the alleged damages are superfluous and imaginary and were not within the contemplation of the parties when the Complainant purchased ticket for travelling in the aircraft of the Opposite Party. The intimation regarding the cancellation of the flight was given a day prior to the scheduled date. The present complaint filed by and on behalf of the Complainant is not maintainable in as much as in the present complaint, the Complainant got the tickets booked in January 2015.  Further submitted that suddenly and abruptly, the aircraft in question could not be used as a same became unserviceable due to technical snag. The intimation in this regard was given on 1.3.2015 and admittedly, the Complainant received the same.The Complainant was given two options i.e. to get the full refund or to avail the alternate flight for the same sector. The Complainant however, opted for full refund, as he stated that he has made the alternate arrangements. Furthersubmitted that full refund of the said cancelled ticket was also processed, which the Complainant received. In view of the same, the Complainant after having received the full refund, as per his own choice and option, is now estopped from filing the present complaint. The Opposite Party submits that the ticket in question was booked by the Complainant through internet which also reflects the terms of carriage and the tickets are booked only on the passengers accepting the said terms and conditions. It is therefore, submitted that the said terms and conditions constitute a binding contract between the parties. The said terms and conditions stipulates as under:

The company reserves to itself the right, without assigning any reason, to cancel or delay the commencement or continuance of the flight or to alter the stopping place or to deviate from the route of the journey or to change the type of aircraft in use without thereby incurring any liability in damages or otherwise to the passengers or any other person on any ground whatsoever. The company also reserves to itself the right to refuse to carry any person whom it considers unfit to travel or who in the opinion of the company may constitute risks to the aircraft or to the persons on board.

The Opposite Party submits that in view of the aforesaid stipulation, which is a contract binding on both the parties, the Opposite Party had a right to cancel the flight. In the present case, the flight was cancelled due to technical and operational reasons, which is reason, beyond power and control of the operating airlines. The intimation thereof was given to the Complainant almost 12 hours in advance. In view of the same, neither there is any deficiency of service, nor the breach of any of the obligations. The complaint filed by and on behalf of the Complainant is not maintainable in as much as all airlines are governed by the Rules and Regulations framed by the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) which is a regulatory body. As per Paras 3.3.2 of the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) issued by the DGCA on 6^th August 2012, relating to cancellation of flights, the operating airline’s liability for compensation arises only when the passengers have not been informed about the cancellation, atleast three hours, prior to departure of the flight, on which they were scheduled to travel. The Complainant and other passengers have been informed about 12 hours in advance about the said cancellation and as such, the Complainant cannot be compensated in terms of the aforesaid CAR issued by DGCA, which is mandatory and applicable in such like situations and circumstances.  The complaint filed by and on behalf of the Complainant is not maintainable in as much as the Opposite Party had to cancel the said flight due to sudden and unforeseen circumstances, which were beyond the power and control of the Opposite Party. It is submitted that the aircraft in question had to be grounded on account of technical snag and the same could not be rectified.  The Opposite Party was also not in a position to arrange alternate aircraft. In view of the same, the flight had to be cancelled and in order to minimize the inconvenience to the passengers, the intimation was delivered almost 12 hours prior to the scheduled time of travel. The kind of contingencies are duly covered by Rules and Regulations framed by the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) which is a regulatory body. It is submitted that rules 1.4 and 1.5 of the said CAR cover these kinds of exigencies. On this ground and other grounds, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

5.       The Complainant to substantiate hiscase,filed his affidavit evidence. Though the documentsproduced, but did not mark. The Opposite Party has not filed affidavit evidence. Both the parties have not filed written arguments.

 

          6. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1) Whether the Complainant proves the deficiency in service on the

part of the OPs, if so, whether he is entitled for the relief sought

for?

 

2) What Order?

                  

7.  Our answers to the above points are as under:

 

Point No.1: In the Negative

Point No.2:As per the final order for the following

REASONS

8. POINT NO.1:    We have briefly stated the contents of the complaint as well as the version filed by the Opposite Parties.The main grievance of the Complainant is that the said flight was cancelled and the same was not intimated to him 10 hours before the time of departure of the flight. Hence, the Complainant was shocked and dejected at the prospect of missing out on his holiday and the foreseeable financial loss of his bookings. With regard to the booking of the hotel etc., the Complainant has not produced any relevant documents. It is not in dispute the he has received a refund of amount of Rs.35,843/- on 18.3.2015 from the Opposite Party.But he still suffers a loss of Rs.46,909/-. The say of the Opposite Party is that cancellation of the said flight has been informed well in advance to the Complainant i.e. a day prior to the scheduled date. In view of the same, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Further submits that the present complaint filed by the Complainant is not maintainable in as much as in the present complaint, the Complainant got the tickets booked in January 2015.  But suddenly and abruptly, the aircraft in question could not be used as a same became unserviceable due to technical snag. The intimation in this regard was given on 1.3.2015 and admittedly, the Complainant received the same.  The Opposite Party submits that the Complainant was given two options i.e. to get the full refund or to avail the alternate flight for the same sector. The Complainant opted for full refund. In this context, full refund of the said cancelled ticket was also processed, which the Complainant received. In view of the same, the Complainant after having received the full refund, as per his own choice and option, is now estopped from filing the present complaint. We found there is a considerable force in the contention taken by the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Party is also further submits that the ticket in question was booked by the Complainant through internet which also reflects the terms and conditions. It is therefore, submits that the said terms and conditions constitute a binding contract between the parties. One of the clauses in the said terms and conditions stipulates as under:

The company reserves to itself the right, without assigning any reason, to cancel or delay the commencement or continuance of the flight or to alter the stopping place or to deviate from the route of the journey or to change the type of aircraft in use without thereby incurring any liability in damages or otherwise to the passengers or any other person on any ground whatsoever. The company also reserves to itself the right to refuse to carry any person whom it considers unfit to travel or who in the opinion of the company may constitute risks to the aircraft or to the persons on board.  

In the light of the said Clause, contract is binding on both parties. The Opposite Party had a right to cancel the flight. An intimation of the cancellation of the said flight was almost given to the Complainant 12 hours in advance. Hence, the contention taken by the Complainant that cancellation of the flight was not informed within 10 hours has no legs to stand. It is also the specific contention of the Opposite Party that the complaint filed by the Complainant is not maintainable in as much as all airlines are governed by the Rules and Regulations framed by the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) which is a regulatory body. As per Paras 3.3.2 of the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) issued by the DGCA on 6^th August 2012, relating to cancellation of flights, the operating airline’s liability for compensation arises only when the passengers have not been informed about the cancellation, atleast three hours, prior to departure of the flight, on which they were scheduled to travel. The Complainant and other passengers have been informed about 12 hours in advance about the said cancellation and as such, the Complainant cannot be compensated in terms of the aforesaid CAR issued by DGCA, which is mandatory and applicable in such like situations and circumstances and also the specific contention of the Opposite Party that the complaint filed by and on behalf of the Complainant is not maintainable in as much as the Opposite Party had to cancel the said flight due to sudden and unforeseen circumstances, which were beyond the power and control of the Opposite Party. It is submitted that the aircraft in question had to be grounded on account of technical snag and the same could not be rectified.  The Opposite Party was also not in a position to arrange alternate aircraft. In view of the same, the flight had to be cancelled and in order to minimize the inconvenience to the passengers, the intimation was delivered almost 12 hours prior to the scheduled time of travel. The kind of contingencies are duly covered by Rules and Regulations framed by the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) which is a regulatory body. It is submitted that rules 1.4 and 1.5 of the said CAR cover these kinds of exigencies. In view of the same, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed”. If the above said contents of the said Clausesare strictly construed, we found there is a considerable force as the Complainant and other passenger have been informed about 12 hours in advance about the said cancellation and as such, the Complainant cannot be compensated in terms of CAR issued by DGCA which is mandatory and applicable in such a situation and circumstances. Anyhow after cancellation, the Opposite Party has given two options to the Complainant to refund the entire amount, and also for the alternative flight, but it is the Complainant who opted for the refund of the ticket which has been already processed and refunded to the Complainant. In this view of the matter, we do not find any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Accordingly, this point is answered in the negative.

9.       POINT NO.2:In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The complaint filed by the Complainant is dismissed devoid of any merits.

Looking to the circumstances of the case, we direct both the parties to bear their own cost.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the open forum on 31^stMay2018).

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER	(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT

 

 

 

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Nitin Singh., who being the Complainant was examined.

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Anx-1	Copy of the ticket dt.2.3.2015
Anx-2	Copy of the credit card statement
Anx-3	E-mail from Spicejet
Anx-4	Jet Airways ticket
Anx-5-6	Copy of the letter and courier receipt

 

 

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

 

NIL

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party

 

Anx-R1	Terms and conditions of carriage
Anx-R2	Reports sending of intimation
Anx-R3	Copy of Civil Aviation Requirements

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R) MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)   PRESIDENT