Punjab

StateCommission

A/335/2018

INTERGLOBE AVIATION LIMITED - Complainant(s)

Versus

UPDIP SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

AMANDEEP SINGH

12 Sep 2018

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION,          PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH

 

                   First Appeal No.335 of 2018

 

 

                                                          Date of Institution    :04.06.2018     

                                                        Order Reserved on  :06.09.2018

                                                          Date of Decision     : 12.09.2018

 

Interglobe Aviation Limited (Indigo), Level 1, Tower C, Global Business Park, Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon 122002, Haryana through its Chairman/Managing Director/ CEO/ Principal Officer.

 

                                                                   Appellant/Opposite party

 

 

                                       Versus

 

Updip Singh Son of Late Sh. Gulzar Singh, resident of House no. 34, Street No. 5, Gopal Nagr, Majith Road, Amritsar, Telephone (M) 9803020883

 

                                                                   Respondent/Complainant

 

First Appeal against order dated 11.04.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Amritsar.

Quorum:-

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member

            Smt. Kiran Sibal, Member.

 

Present:-

          For the appellant           :  Sh.Amandeep Singh, Advocate

          For the respondent        :  Sh.Sukhandeep Singh, Advocate

 

. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

 

J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

                    Challenge in this appeal by appellant is to order dated 11.04.2018 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Amritsar directing the appellant to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- for mental harassment and Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation to respondent of this appeal. The respondent of this appeal is complainant in the complaint and appellant of this appeal is opposite party in the complaint and they be referred as such hereinafter for the sake of convenience.

2.                The complainant has filed the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against OP on the averments that he was required to go to Delhi for his professional work to appear before National Commission by travelling  by air from Amritsar to Delhi and back the same day to save time. He booked his airline ticket of OP, vide flight no.6E-525 vide PNR No.DYDVKM through PAYTM portal for a sum of Rs.2,408/-. The flight was to start at 6.45 am from Amritsar and was to reach New Delhi at 7.45 am. He also booked evening flight of Jet Airways for returning from Delhi to Amritsar on the same day. The complainant received mail from OP on 06.07.2017 late in the evening that flight in question has been rescheduled to 16.55 hrs for going from Amritsar to Delhi and flight number has been changed to 6E-637. OP rescheduled flight number without any reason without looking to the convenience of the passengers. It was very difficult for complainant to arrange for alternate mode of transport to Delhi in the nick of time and hence he contacted OP on helpline number, but to no effect. Under constrained circumstances, he relented to go to Delhi by 19.07.2017  in evening flight of Indigo provided night accommodation arrangement was made by the airlines. One Mr. Raza gave unique offer that complainant would be made to board evening flight of Indigo from Amritsar to Bombay leaving Amritsar at 16.55 hrs, reaching Bombay late in the night, then from Bombay to Delhi reaching over there at around 4.00 hrs on 20.07.2017 and with this, it was suggested that the night stay problem of complainant would be solved in this way. The complainant wrote email on 07.07.2017 to customer relation cell of OP for said purpose narrating all the facts. The complainant received reply from OP that it would not be liable in any way whatsoever for any loss incurred by the customer as a result of such change. The complainant left with no other option but to book another ticket on 09.07.2017 on Air India flight from Amritsar to Delhi for 20.07.2017 from the portal of Musafir.com vide PNR No. YYFLP leaving Amritsar 6.50 am and reaching Delhi at 7.55 am the same day by spending amount of Rs.3,572/- and travelled on 20.07.2017 on this flight from Amritsar to Delhi. The complainant requested OP to compensate him for financial loss as well as hardship and agony suffered by him, but to no effect. Even on 23.07.2017, the complainant booked air ticket for 23.08.2017 on flight no. 6E-625 of OP from Amritsar to Delhi leaving Amritsar at 6.45 am and purchased on 20.05.2017 for Rs.1,853/- for Rs.1,853/- with PNR No.BEIWPA booked through EASEMYTRIP portal. The said flight was rescheduled to evening at 14.55 hrs and converted to flight 6E-637. On communicating with customer helpline number of OPs, the same story of ticket for 20.07.2017 and again complainant was forced to buy air ticket for Air India Cheap Ticket Portal for Rs.2,195/-. OP rescheduled the flight without any valid reason causing inconvenience to the passengers.  The complainant has filed complaint directing the OP to make payment of two tickets , which he purchased for arbitrary act of rescheduleding the flight for Rs.3572/- for ticket for 20.07.2017 and Rs.2195/- for the ticket for 23.08.2017 with interest @ 15% from the date of purchase of ticket till realization, besides compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of litigation.

3.                Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply by raising preliminary objections that complaint is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. The complaint is without any cause of action. The complainant booked air ticket for 20.07.2017 from Amritsar to Delhi on board Indigo flight no.6E-525, which was confirmed by Inter Globe Aviation Limited under PNR No.DYDVKM upon receipt of a total amount of INR 2,121/- for tickets. The said air tickets booked were governed by certain terms and conditions of carriage known as Indigo Conditions of Carriage –Domestic, which were available on the website of InterGlobe Aviation Limited and were also made known to the complainant. The complainant agreed therewith at the time of booking the tickets.  The IndiGo CoC are binding in nature. Article 13.2 of the IndiGo CoC  deals with this matter. OP reserved the right to reschedule or cancelled the flight as mentioned in the above instructions. Cancellation of flight no.6E-525 was due to commercial reasons, which were beyond the control of OP. Information regarding the change in flight schedule was communicated to complainant, vide emails on 06.07.2017, 13.07.2017, 14.07.2017, 15.07.2017, 16.07.2017, 17.07.2017, 18.07.2017 and 19.07.2017, which were sent on his registered email address provided by him at the time of booking the air ticket. As per InterGlobe Aviation Limited record, flight no.6E-525 was cancelled due to commercial reasons and complainant was given an option by OP to be rebooked on IndiGo Flight bearing o.6E-637 from Amritsar to New Delhi scheduled to departure at 04.55 pm. The complainant contacted OP on 07.07.2017 for cancellation of the booking. The complainant was aware of the flight cancellation, therefore, he was contacted by OP in order to cancel the reservation. The said request made by complainant was duly complied with and full refund of the booking amount was processed and complainant admitted to getting a full refund of the booking amount. OP will not be liable for any loss incurred to the customers, as per Article 13.1 of the IndiGo CoC. OP further averred in written reply on merits that it intimated the complainant on 06.07.2017 through email and SMS about cancellation of the IndiGo Flight bearing no.6E-525,  due to commercial reasons. OP denied any deficiency in service on its part and it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

4.                The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 along with copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-12  and closed the evidence. As against it; OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Aayushi Aggarwal working as Legal Counsel for InterGlobe Aviation Ltd as Ex.OP-1 along with copies of the documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-8 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Consumer Forum Amritsar accepted the complaint of the  complainant by virtue of order dated 11.04.2018. Aggrieved by above order of the District Forum Amritsar, opposite party now appellant carried this appeal against the same.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 on the record in support of his allegations on oath, as contained in the complaint. Ex.C-2 is PAYTM for booking of ticket from Amritsar to Delhi for 20.07.2017. Ex.C-3 is E-Ticket purchased by the complainant for 20.07.2017 from Amritsar to Delhi from OP for Rs.4260/- . Ex.C-5 is e-ticket. Ex.C-6 is receipt issued by OP for Rs.3572/- to complainant. Ex.C-8 is e-ticket from Amritsar to New Delhi.  Ex.C-9 is email by OP with regard to booking under PNR DYDVKM. Ex.C-10 is urgent important notice. Ex.C-12 is re-change of status of flight 6E-525 on 23.08.2017.

6.                To counter this evidence, OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Aayushi Aggarwal working as Legal Counsel of InterGlobe Aviation Ltd as Ex.OP-1  on the record. Letter of authority is Ex.OP-2.Certified copy of resolution approved by Board of Directors is Ex.OP-3. Ex.OP-4 is conditions of carriage. Similarly, we have also examined other documents Ex.OP-5 to Ex.OP-8 on the record.       

7.                The District Forum found deficiency in service on the part of OP and accepted the complaint of the complainant by providing relief to the complainant in this case. Appeal has been preferred against the same by OP challenging the legality and correctness of the findings of the District Forum. From hearing the respective submissions of counsel for the parties and perusal of record, we proceed to decide this appeal. The facts are not much in controversy in this case. The complainant booked flight from Amritsar to Delhi with OP and paid money to it in that regard and flight was rescheduled by OP. The counsel for OP relied upon Instructions of office of Director General of Civil Aviation effective on 01.08.2016. He contended that as per Clause 3.2.3, a passenger booked on connecting flights of the same airline or of the other airline, shall be compensated by the airline of the first flight for the first leg in accordance with the provisions of Paras 3.2.2 of this CAR, when he has been delayed at the departure station on account of denied boarding, but has arrived at the final destination at least three hours later than the scheduled arrival time. Similarly, he also relied upon clause 3.3 Cancellation of Flight

3.3.1  In order to reduce inconvenience caused to the passengers as a result of the cancellations of the flights on which they are booked to travel, airline shall inform the passenger of the cancellation at least two weeks before the scheduled time of departure and arrange alternate fight/refund as acceptable to the passenger. In case the passengers are informed of the cancellation less than two weeks before and up to 24 hours of the scheduled time of departure, the airline shall offer alternate flight allowing them to depart within two hours of their booked scheduled time of departure.

These instructions have not been struck down by any competent court. On the other hand, counsel for complainant relied upon judgment of this Commission in First Appeal No. 180 of 2018 in case titled as INDIGO Airlines Versus Dr. Anu Girdhar and another, decided on 06.06.2018 by this Commission in which refund of the ticket amount purchased by complainant was ordered to be refunded along with compensation of Rs.20,000/- for mental harassment and cost of litigation as well. Counsel for OP also relied upon instruction under Clause 3.3 regarding cancellation of flight. Airline shall inform the passenger of the cancellation at least two weeks before the scheduled time of departure and arrange alternate flight/refund as acceptable to the passenger. In case, the passengers are informed of the cancellation less than two weeks before and up to 24 hours of the scheduled time of department, the airline shall offer alternate flight allowing them to depart within two hours of their booked scheduled time of departure. However, there is violation of Clause 3.3. of the Civil Aviation Requirements by OP in this case. Our own Commission has also awarded compensation for mental harassment to the tune of Rs.20,000/- for this similar deficient act of OP. The citied authority applies to the facts of the case in hand on all corners. Since OP has not cancelled  the flight by giving notice of two weeks and, as has been held by this Commission, the District Forum has correctly appreciated the controversy in proper perspective and awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/- for mental harassment to complainant and Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation. We are in agreement with the findings of the District , as recorded in this order under challenge in this appeal.

8.                As a result of our above discussion, there is no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order passed by the District Forum Amritsar and same is affirmed in this appeal. Finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.

9.                The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- in this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, if any, accrued thereon, be refunded by the registry to respondent/complainant by way of crossed cheque/demand draft after 45 days from receipt of certified copy of this order. Remaining amount, if any, shall be paid to complainant by the appellants of this appeal, as per order of District Forum within 45 days from receipt of certified copy of this order.

10.              Arguments in this appeal were heard on 06.09.2018 and the order was reserved. Certified copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

11.              The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                       (J. S. KLAR)

                                                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                    

 

                                                                   (KIRAN SIBAL)                      

                                                              MEMBER

September 12, 2018                                                           

(ravi)