Back
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sunita Sharma, R.K. Verma, JJ.
SMT. RACHNA DOGRA AND OTHERS — Appellants
Vs.
SPICEJET LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondents
First Appeal No. 68 of 2020
Decided On : 24-09-2021
Deficiency in Service - Consumer Complaint - [Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r)] - The court discussed the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, particularly Section 2(1)(g) defining 'complainant', Section 2(1)(o) defining 'deficiency' and Section 2(1)(r) defining 'service'. The court interpreted these provisions to establish that the cancellation of the flight without prior intimation and failure to provide alternate arrangements amounted to deficiency in service, leading to the court's decision in favor of the complainants.
Fact of the Case:
The complainants booked tickets for a flight which was later cancelled without prior intimation, leading to additional expenses and mental agony. The District Commission partly allowed the complaint, directing the airline to refund the additional expenses, pay compensation for mental agony, and cover litigation costs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cancellation of the flight without prior intimation and failure to provide alternate arrangements constituted deficiency in service, justifying the compensation and refund awarded by the District Commission.
Issues: The main issue was whether the complainants were entitled to compensation and refund due to the airline's cancellation of the flight without prior intimation and failure to provide alternate arrangements.
Ratio Decidendi: The cancellation of the flight without prior intimation and failure to provide alternate arrangements constituted deficiency in service, leading to the court's decision in favor of the complainants.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, modifying the District Commission's order to increase the compensation and litigation costs awarded to the complainants, affirming the refund of additional expenses.
ORDER :
1. Present appeal has been filed against the order dated 02.11.2019 passed by Learned District Consumer Forum/Commission, Shimla, H.P. in Consumer Complaint No. 52/2018, titled Smt. Rachna Dogra & Anr. Versus Spice Jet Limited & Anr.
Brief facts of consumer complaint:
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that complainants have booked tickets of Spice jet SD-971 through OP No. 2 from Delhi to Trivandrum to attend the National Shooting Championship which was going to be held from 11.12.2017 to 16.12.2017 and they paid amount of Rs. 30,885/- and the flight of the complainants was on 10.12.2017 from Indira Gandhi Airport Delhi to Trivandrum at 7:45 AM and the complainants were required to reach the airport before half an hour as per the instructions. It is further pleaded that the complainants reached at the airport in the morning at 5 o'clock and on inquiry they were surprised when they came to know that their flight has been cancelled and the complainants thereafter asked for any alternative arrangement or alternative flight but the Executive of the OP No. 1 refused for any such flight or arrangement and the complainants thereafter inquired as to why they have not been sent any message in advance so that they could have made alternative arrangement but no satisfactory reply was given by the Executive of the OP No. 1. It is further pleaded that the complainants also asked the OP No. 1 to refund the cost of the ticket so that they could make other arrangements to reach Trivandrum well in time but the Executive refused to do so and misbehaved with the complainants and thereafter the complainants were forced to book five tickets amounting to Rs. 74,695/- for the flight which was available at 9:15 PM as all other flights were already booked and was the last flight of the day to reach the destination in time and failure of the OP No. 1 to intimate the complainants well in time regarding the cancellation of their flight amounts to deficiency in service due to which the complainants were compelled to pay Rs. 44,000/- extra and they have also suffered harassment as well as mental agony.
3. The complaint so filed has been opposed by the OP No. l by filing reply taking preliminary objections therein regarding maintainability. On merits, it is pleaded that the flight dated 10.12.2017 from Delhi to Trivandrum has been cancelled due to change in schedule regarding which intimation was given to the passengers including the complainants by way of SMS on the provided mobile No. 09459584377 as well as by way of e-mail on the e-mail address provided. It is further pleaded that the said tickets were booked by the complainants through OP No. 2 and a sum of Rs. 29,635/- i.e. the total amount of the tickets has been refunded to the OP No. 2 by OP No. 1 on 12.12.2017 itself and since intimation regarding cancellation of flight has been given to all the passengers including the complainants in advance, no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainants to file the present complaint and as such OP No. 1 is not liable for non-operation of the flight in question. It is denied that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 1.
4. OP No. 2 filed separate reply taking preliminary objections therein regarding maintainability and cause of action. On merits, it is not denied that the complainant has booked a flight from Delhi to Trivandrum via Kochi which flight was to be operated by the OP No. 1 on 10.12.2017. It is also not denied that the flight, which was to be operated by the OP No. 1 has been cancelled on that date, but pleaded that the OP No. 2 is not liable for any delay or cancellation of the flight as the flight is being operated by OP No. l. It is further pleaded that OP No. 2 was not under any obligation to provide any alternative arrangement to the complainants and the grievance of the complainants is limited to the cancellation of the confirmed flight by OP No. l and not on account of any mistake on the part of O
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
