Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member, Mrs. Rekha Gupta, Member
Air Deccan, (Now Known as Kingfisher Airlines Ltd.) —Petitioner
versus
T P S Phoolka & Ors. —Respondents
Revision Petition No. 2076 of 2013
(From the order dated 12.12.2012 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in First Appeal no. 145 of 2008), With, IA Nos. 3416 and 3417 of 2013 (Stay, Condonation of Delay)
Decided on 8.12.2014
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Abhijeet Swaroop, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Vivek Gupta Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: Nemo
For the Respondent No. 3: (Proforma Party).
IMPORTANT POINT
Flight cannot be cancelled without any just cause.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Airlines—Deficicency in service—Cancellation of flight—Fora below directed to refund cost of ticket and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-—There is no proof to support plea of bad weather—Flight was cancelled without any just cause and intimation was given very late which compelled complainants to purchase tickets from some other airlines—Since both complainants claim to be officials and had to attend their office and it naturally caused harassment and mental tension to them—They had to arrange for alternative flight tickets of which they purchased for Rs.21,280/-—Order of State Commission does not call for any interference nor does it suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity—Revision Petition dismissed. (Paras 10 to 15)
Result: Revision Petition dismissed.
Mrs. Rekha Gupta, Member—Revision Petition no. 2076 of 2013 has been filed against the order dated 12.12.2012 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (‘the State Commission) in First Appeal no. 145 of 2008.
2. Brief facts of the case as per the respondents/ complainants are that respondent no. 1 was the Manager Personal, PUNSUP, Chandigarh and respondent no. 2 was the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Patiala. On December 20, 2006, the respondents got two air tickets booked for 03.01.2007 for their air travel from Mumbai to Delhi. The respondents were given tickets for flight no. DN 660 and for these two tickets the respondents had made a payment of Rs.9930.40. The flight was to depart from Mumbai at 08.20 A M and reach Delhi Airport at 10.30 A M on 03.01.2007. Unfortunately, the petitioner/ opposite party cancelled the tickets unceremoniously on 03.01.2007 and sent an SMS at 02.40 AM to the respondents that the flight was cancelled.
3. The respondents were required to be at Patiala on 03.01.2007 before 04.00 pm, since the respondent no. 1 being at that time posted as Additional Chief Administrator, PUDA, Patiala and had an urgent meeting with the Omaxe Group regarding very significant agenda. Due to the urgency of their situation the respondents reached the airport at 07.00 am in the morning to reschedule and arrange an alternative ticket on Air Deccan Airlines. However, they were informed about the non-availability of the tickets till 05.01.2007. Not only that, the petitioner refused to refund the amount of the cancelled tickets on frivolous and baseless grounds.
4. The respondents were left with no other option but to book themselves two tickets for 03.01.2007 with Kingfisher Airlines. The respondents were forced to waste one full day. The flight which was available was to depart from Mumbai at 1830 hours and was to reach New Delhi at 2025 hours on that day. The important meeting with Omaxe Group had to be forgone because of the indifferent attitude, negligent and deficient service on the part of the petitioner. Moreover, the respondents were required to pay an amount of Rs.21,280/- for two tickets. The amount which had already been paid to the Air Deccan was Rs.9930/-. Due to the urgency, the respondents had to pay exorbitant amount for their journey.
5. The respondent ultimately could reach New Delhi only at 10.30 p m on 03.01.2007. The respondents then had to travel back to Patiala, by road, throughout the night, thus reaching Patiala at 04.30 a m to attend their respective offices on 04.01.2007.
6. The petitioner/ opposite party in their written statement have stated that every year during the second fortnight of December and first fortnight of January, the weather conditions in entire North India particularly in Delhi are very bad and most of the flights to and fro to Delhi are either cancelled or delayed. Due to bad weather in Delhi on 03.01.2007 the entire flight schedule was disturbed and because of that the respondents flight no. DN 660 from Mumbai to Delhi and Flight no. DN 670 from Delhi to Bangalore were cancelled on the aforesaid date.
7. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib Camp at Patiala (‘the District Forum’) vide its order dated 09.01.2008 allowed the complaint and directed that “the opposite party to make the payment of Rs.21,280/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum since 03.01.2007 till realization and also compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs.1000/- as cost of the complaint”.
8. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide order dated 12.12.2012 dismissed the appeal stating that there was no scope for interference in the order of the District Forum. The State Commission has held as under:
“9. This argument was not accepted by the learned District Forum rightly so because Ex.C-3 is not a proof of bad whether being int
