Haryana

Panchkula

CC/309/2016

TARSEM GARG - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, SPICEJET LTD - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

01 Jun 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                            

Consumer Complaint No	:	309 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	21.11.2016
Date of Decision	:	01.06.2017

 

Mr.Tarsem Garg, H.No.1641, Sector-4, Panchkula.

                                                                                        ….Complainant

Versus

 

1.       The Managing Director, Spicejet Ltd., 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase IV, Gurgaon, Haryana-122016.

2.       Senior Manager (Legal Department), Spicejet Ltd., 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase IV, Gurgaon, Haryana-122016.

                                                                                        ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

Mr.Jagmohan Singh, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Complainant in person.

                             Mr.Saurabh Sharma, Adv., for the Ops.

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

1. The complainant has filed this complaint against the Ops with the averments that he booked two tickets from New Delhi to Chennai and Chennai to New Delhi for 28.06.2016 through Yatra.com (online) and got seats bearing Nos.18B and 18C for the flight No.SG107. The complainant alongwith his wife reached 20 minutes before from the scheduled departure of the flight but the manager of Ops did not allow them to board the flight. The complainant requested the Manager to allow them to board but to no avail. The complainant also booked the veg. meals for New Delhi to Chennai flight for an amount of Rs.276/- which could not be utilized and no refund was also made to them. The complainant had to book Air India flight AI-429 through makemytrip.com and had to spend Rs.15,000/- for attending his meeting at Chennai whereas the scheduled flight of the Ops was late and they could easily allow the complainant alongwith his wife to board the flight but the staff of the Ops’ did not allow him to board the flight. The staff of the Ops intentionally not allowed the complainant to board the flight so that the Ops could earn from reallocating the seats on return journey to some other passengers. The seats of the complainant were allotted to some other passengers. The complainant also issued legal notice to the Ops but to no avail. This act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. The Ops appeared before this Forum and filed written statement by taking preliminary objection and submitted that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed material facts. It is submitted that the rules and contractual obligations which mentioned in e-tickets as under:-

“Cancellation/changes within “2 hours” prior to the scheduled departure time or failure to check-in for a Spicejet flight at least 45 minutes prior to the scheduled departure time will result in the fare being forfeited.”

It is submitted that non-compliance of the same might lead to cancellation of the licence of the airline. It is submitted that the complainant has defaulted in complying with the directions and missed the flight in question. The complainant himself admitted that he reached at the airport 20 minutes before from the scheduled departure of flight. It is submitted that the flight was on time and the flight in question departed at the right time. As per the DGCA regulations, the complainant and the fellow passenger should have reached at the boarding counter at least 45 minutes before the scheduled time of departure of the flight whereas the complainant reached at the boarding counter 20 minutes before, therefore, they themselves breached the terms and conditions mentioned in the tickets. The complainant and his fellow passenger were No Show for the said flight and as per terms of carriage, in case of No Show, the entire amount was forfeited and statutory taxes etc. were refunded to the passenger. It is submitted that the statutory taxes were have been refunded to the passenger through agent i.e. Yatra.com from whom the tickets in question were got booked. It is submitted that this Forum has no jurisdiction as the tickets were booked from New Delhi to Chennai and the office of the Op is in Gurgaon. It is denied that the complainant requested the Manger. It is submitted that the boarding pass could not be issued to the complainant and the fellow passenger as they were late. It is submitted that the entire amount of statutory taxes and meals etc. had been refunded to the complainant through their agent i.e. yatra.com. It is submitted that doors of the aircraft had closed after the scheduled time. It is denied that the staff of the Ops’ intentionally did not allow the complainant to board the flight or their intention was to earn from re-allocating their seats on return journey to some other passengers. It is denied that the seats of flight from New Delhi to Chennai had also been allotted to some other passengers. It is denied that the flight from Chennai to New Delhi was also late.  Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3. Replication to the written statement has been filed by the complainant.
4. The counsel for the complainant tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-6 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R-A alongwith documents Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the complainant appearing in person & learned counsel for the Ops and have also perused the record.
6. It is admitted that the complainant booked two tickets from New Delhi to Chennai and Chennai to New Delhi for 28.06.2016 through Yatra.com (online) and got seats bearing Nos.18B and 18C for the flight No.SG107 (Annexure C-1). The grievance of the complainant is that he alongwith his wife reached 20 minutes before from the scheduled departure of the flight but the Manager of Ops did not allow them to board the flight. The complainant requested the Manager to allow them to board but they did not allow them to board. Therefore. the complainant had to book Air India flight AI-429 through makemytrip.com by spending an amount Rs.15,000/- to attend his meeting at Chennai and the seats of the complainant were allotted to some other passengers.
7. On the other hand, the Ops submitted that the complainant did not comply with the directions and terms & conditions mentioned on tickets by admitting that they reached at the airport 20 minutes before from the scheduled departure of flight. As per the DGCA regulations, the complainant and the fellow passenger should have reached at the boarding counter at least 45 minutes before the scheduled time of departure of the flight whereas the complainant reached at the boarding counter 20 minutes before, therefore, they themselves breached the terms and conditions mentioned in the tickets. The rules and contractual obligations which mentioned in e-tickets as under:-

“Cancellation/changes within “2 hours” prior to the scheduled departure time or failure to check-in for a Spicejet flight at least 45 minutes prior to the scheduled departure time will result in the fare being forfeited.”

Further the Ops submitted that it is wrong to say that they intentionally did not allow the complainant to board the flight as their intention was to earn from re-allocating their seats on return journey to some other passengers whereas the complainant and his fellow passenger were mentioned as No Show which is clear from Annexure C-2. 

8. From the above, it is clear that the complainant has breached the terms and conditions mentioned on the e-tickets as he has reached the airport 20 minutes before instead of 45 minutes. The complainant cannot be permitted to take shelter under the plea that he had to book Air India flight AI-429 through makemytrip.com and had also to spend Rs.15,000/- to attend his meeting at Chennai. Here we are fortified by the similar view taken by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh, in appeal No. 224 of 2007, titled as “Bhupinder Singh Negi vs. Indira Gandhi International Airport”, decided on 01.12.2009. The complainant has also placed on record a copy of judgement dated 29.12.2015 passed by State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh titled as Spicejet Ltd. vs. Ranju Aery is not maintainable.  
9. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the complainant himself do not comply with the rules mentioned on the e-tickets and deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the present complaint is dismissed accordingly. The parties shall bear their own costs.
10. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced

01.06.2017 JAGMOHAN SINGH   ANITA KAPOOR     DHARAM PAL

                      MEMBER                   MEMBER                PRESIDENT

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.      

         

                                                         DHARAM PAL

                                                          PRESIDENT