Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/465/2017

Saroj Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aditya Ghose, Indigo Airlines - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

06 Dec 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	465  of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	12.06.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	06.12.2017

 

 

 

 

Saroj Kumar Singh, #13, NGO Block, Commando Complex, Sector 65, Mohali (Punjab). 

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  Aditya Ghose, Chairman, Indigo Airlines, Level-1, Tower-C, Global Business Park, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Gurugram, Haryana 122002

2]  Indigo Airlines, Level-1, Tower-C, Global Business Park, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Gurugram, Haryana 122002, through Rahul Bhati, Managing Director. 

….. Opposite Parties 

 

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH              MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      : Complainant in person. 

 

For Opposite Party(s)   : Ms.Jasdeep Kaur, Advocate

 

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant got booked air-tickets of Indigo Airlines/OP No.2 for 4.5.2017 on 19.12.2016 for himself and his mother for the route from Ranchi to Delhi and Delhi to Chandigarh against advance payment. The Opposite Party NO.2 issued confirmed air tickets for the said date of Flight No.937 (Ann.-1). It is averred that the complainant along with his mother stayed in a Guest House during the night of 3.5.2017 in order to board the flight on 4.5.2017. It is averred that when the complainant with his mother was ready to leave for Ranchi Airport for taking the flight, the complainant received a message with regard to cancellation of the Flight No.6E 398, whereas at the time of booking the Flight Number was given as 979.  It is further averred that the complainant made a call to the OPs who confirmed the cancellation of the flight. It is also averred that on making several requests, the complainant and his mother were accommodated in the Flight to Delhi at 8:30 PM which reached Delhi at 10:25 PM in the night.  However, from Delhi to Chandigarh no further arrangement was made by the OPs. Averred that left with no alternative, the complainant and his mother reached Bus Stand, Delhi and took the Bus therefrom to Chandigarh in the midnight and reached Chandigarh in early morning. It is submitted that the complainant and his old mother despite having confirmed tickets from Ranchi to Delhi and from Delhi to Chandigarh, suffered badly due to deficient services rendered by the OPs. It is alleged that the complainant as well as his aged mother undergone a lot of physical and mental harassment and financial loss.  Hence, this complaint has been filed.

 

2]       The Opposite Parties have filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that on 23.3.2017 the IndiGo Flight No.6E-979 scheduled to fly from Ranchi to New Delhi (IXR-DEL) was changed to 6E-398 which was rescheduled to depart at 09:45 AM and the same was intimated to the complainant and his mother Prema Singh on 23.3.2017 through SMS and e-mails (Ann.R-4 colly.).   It is stated that on 4.5.2017 the complainant flight i.e. IndiGo Flight No.6E-398 was cancelled on account of operational reasons beyond the control of InterGlobe Aviation Limited and this was duly intimated to the complainant through SMS.  It is also stated that on the request of complainant, he was offered the option of flying on an alternative flight from Ranchi to Patna on 4.5.2017 and from Patna to Chandigarh on 5.5.2017 at no additional cost.  However, the complainant instead preferred to be re-accommodated along with Prema Singh onto IndiGo Flight No.6E-4184 scheduled to fly from Ranchi to New Delhi at 8:30 PM on the same day.  It is submitted that the staff of OPs had clarified to the complainant that he would be responsible for arranging his own travel from New Delhi to Chandigarh since he was voluntarily opting for a flight which terminated at New Delhi and only thereafter the complainant and his mother was re-accommodated to Flight NO.6E-4184. Accordingly, the complainant and his mother flew on board IndiGo Flight No.6E-4184 to New Delhi on 4.5.2017. It is also submitted that since the complainant availed the remedy opting re-accommodation onto an alternative IndiGo Flight, therefore, he is not entitled to any further remedy in respect of the air travel in question. It is pleaded that InterGlobe Aviation Limited was not obligated to provide the Complainant or Ms.Prema Singh with travel arrangements or accommodation on account of their flight cancellation. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       Replication has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the OPs.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the complainant in person, ld.Counsel for the OPs and have also perused the entire record.

 

6]       The OPs in their reply admitted the material facts of the case that the complainant booked two air tickets on 19.12.2016 for travel on 4.5.2017 from Ranchi to New Delhi and from New Delhi to Chandigarh on Indigo Flight Nos.6E-979 and 6E-937 respectively for himself and accompanying passenger Ms.Prema Singh (mother of the complainant).  The said tickets were booked on receipt of amount of Rs.2859/- and Rs.3535/- respectively.

 

7]       It is submitted that on 23.3.2017, the flight No.6E-979 booked and scheduled to fly from Ranchi to New Delhi was changed to 6E-398 and was rescheduled to depart at 9:45 AM.  It is so claimed by the OPs that the said change was intimated to the complainant and his co-passenger Ms.Prema Singh (mother of the complainant) on 23.3.2017 through Short Message Service (SMS) and vide email of the same date. It is admitted further that on 4.5.2017, the date on which the complainant and his co-passenger Mrs.Prema Singh was scheduled to travel from Ranchi to New Delhi, the scheduled flight NO.6E-398 was cancelled on account of operational reasons beyond the control of InterGlobe Aviation Limited (OP No.2). It is claimed that the intimation qua the cancellation of the said flight was duly given to the complainant and Mrs.Prema Singh through SMS.

 

8]       The OPs claimed that the complainant and his co-passenger were apprised about the option of re-accommodation onto an alternative Indigo Flight subject to availability, in lieu of the cancellation of his flight and the complainant was offered an alternative flight from Ranchi to Patna on 4.5.2017 and from Patna to Chandigarh on 5.5.2017, which he refused and opted for Flight No.6E-4184 scheduled to fly from Ranchi to New Delhi at 8:30 PM on the same day.  It is claimed that the staff member of InterFlobe Aviation Limited clarified to the complainant that he would be responsible for arranging his own travel from New Delhi to Chandigarh since he was voluntarily opting for a flight which terminated at New Delhi and thus, the complainant and Prema Singh were re-accommodated in Flight NO.6E-4184.

 

9]       From the above submissions and admissions made by the OPs, one thing, which is very clear is the arbitrary functioning of InterGlobe Aviation Limited/OPs. Firstly, the OPs without disclosing any reason changed the flight from Flight No.6E-979 to 6E-398 and rescheduled it to depart at 9:45 AM. Thereafter, they again cancelled the rescheduled flight stating that it was done on account of operational reasons beyond their control.  There is no iota of evidence which corroborates the version of the Opposite Parties. The plight of the complainant and his mother (co-passenger), can well be understood in the given circumstances. 

         It is aptly clear that the complainant along his mother despite of having confirmed bookings of air-tickets of Opposite Parties (which were booked 4 months prior to its scheduled departure) remained in doldrums for all the times. On account of cancellation of the scheduled flight on 4.5.2017 the complainant was offered the option of flying on an alternative flight from Ranchi to Patna on 4.5.2017 and from Patna to Chandigarh on 5.5.2017.  The complainant and his mother would have been more harassed had they accepted the offer of OPs as mentioned above.  As claimed that the complainant was to report on his duty on the next day, wisely, he opted to be re-accommodated in the flight from Ranchi to New Delhi, which was scheduled to fly at 8:30 PM on the same day.  To their dismay, they were further left to make their own arrangement for their further journey from New Delhi to Chandigarh. 

 

10]      The arbitrary functioning of the OPs in the given case is writ large as initially they without disclosing any reasonable ground, changed the scheduled flight.  Thereafter, again scheduled flight for 4.5.2017 was beforehand cancelled assigning the operational reasons.  Nothing concrete has been brought forward by the OPs to show that what were the so called operational reasons, which were beyond the control of the OPs, which further forced them to cancel the rescheduled flight.  However, wrongly the Opposite Parties out rightly refused the complainant and his mother for making any arrangement for their further journey from New Delhi to Chandigarh despite the fact that the complainant had booked the scheduled trip from Ranchi to New Delhi and New Delhi to Chandigarh.        We are of the considered view that it was the sole responsibility of the OPs to not only re-accommodate the passengers (complainant and his mother), but were bound to make arrangements for their safe journey from New Delhi to Chandigarh. The omission on the part of OPs for not making any arrangement for the complainant and his aged mother for their further journey from New Delhi to Chandigarh, despite having confirmed bookings, is a matter of grave deficiency in service on their part.  It is further an act of unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, who against the confirmed bookings provenly provided the services upto midway/halfway only and did not even bother to refund the amount of the unutilized air-fare i.e. for route New Delhi to Chandigarh, for which the complainant had to again arrange on his own. The mental and physical harassment suffered by the complainant can be well be understood in the circumstances discussed above. 

 

11]      For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties not only for resorting to unfair trade practice but also for the deficiency in service towards the complainant and the same is accordingly allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed jointly & severally as under:-

1. To refund the air-fare of the unutilized tickets i.e. for the route from New Delhi to Chandigarh, to the complainant;

 

2. To pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for the harassment suffered by the complainant on account of deficient services and for indulging into unfair trade practice by Opposite Parties;

 

3. To pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5,000/-.

 

         This order shall be complied with by Opposite Parties jointly & severally within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which it shall also be liable to pay interest @9% per annum on amount of compensation from the date of filing this complaint till realization, apart from complying with direction as at sub-para (a) & (c) above.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

6^th December, 2017                                                       Sd/-                                                                                           (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER