Back
ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH
Misc. Application No.1141 of 2019
In/and
First Appeal No.359 of 2019
Date of Institution : 18.06.2019
Date of Reserve : 13.10.2021
Date of Decision : 01.11.2021
Maninder Singh S/o Sh.Gursharan Singh, R/o VPO Naushera,
Majitha Road, Amritsar, Punjab.
……..Appellant/Complainant
Versus
Malindo Airways, Guru Ram Dass Ji International Airport, Amritsar,
Punjab.
……Respondent/Opposite party
First Appeal under Section 15 of the
Consumer Protection Act, as amended
up to date, against the order dated
06.05.2019 of the District Consumer
Disputes
Redressal
Forum,
(now
‘Commission’), Amritsar.
Quorum:-
Hon’ble Mrs.Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Mr. Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member
Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Sukhandeep Singh, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh.Vivek Salathia, Advocate
RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL, MEMBER
The appellant/complainant, Maninder Singh, has filed the
present appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act,
First Appeal No. 359 of 2019
2
1986 (as amended up to date) for setting aside the impugned order
dated 06.05.2019 passed by the District Commission, whereby the
complaint filed by the appellant/complainant before the District
Commission was dismissed being devoid of merits.
2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties
will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District
Commission.
Misc. Application No.1141 of 2019 (Addl. Evidence)
3. This application has been filed by the appellant for placing
on record the flight tickets as additional evidence as Annexure A-3,
on the ground that inadvertently the tickets could not be placed
before the District Commission.
4. The respondent contested the application by filing reply to
the same wherein it is submitted that the complaint after being
remanded back remained pending for almost 2 years and the
appellant/complainant was fully aware of the fact that the evidence
had to be lead, which he failed to produce before the District
Commission and prayed for dismissal of the application on account
of huge delay.
5. We have carefully gone through the record and heard the
arguments raised by the learned counsel of the parties.
6. The appellant, through this application for additional
evidence wants to file the air ticket as Annexure A-3, which is
having the PNR No.DCB7TH issued
against a sum of
Rs.17,784.72p. From the perusal of the evidence produced on
First Appeal No. 359 of 2019
3
record by the complainant before the District Commission, we
found that the said document has already been tendered in
evidence by the appellant/complainant as Ex.C-3. Therefore, there
is no relevancy to file the application for additional evidence for
placing on record the same document, which is already tendered
before the District Commission. Accordingly, the application filed by
the appellant/complainant for additional evidence is hereby
dismissed being devoid of merits.
Facts of the Complaint
7.
Brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the
complainant booked air tickets with the opposite party from
Amritsar to Kulala Lampur and Kuala Lampur to Hong Kong on
15.06.2016 i.e. the date of departure, he was denied boarding the
Aircraft, inspite of having confirmed tickets, on the ground that the
Airlines was overbooked and no seat was available therein. When
confronted that there were enough seats available, as there was no
rush of passengers, the complainant was denied boarding the
flight, on the pretext that he was not having return journey ticket,
which was also shown by him to the officials of the opposite party.
Even then, he was not allowed to board the Aircraft. The act of the
opposite party amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade
practice. Accordingly, the complainant approached the District
