Rajasthan

StateCommission

CC/189/2018

Mr. Naman Gangwal S/o Nirmal Gangwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Etihad Airways Through The Chief Executive Officer - Opp.Party(s)

Bhpendra Pareek

12 Dec 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

COMPLAINT CASE NO; 189 /2018

 

Naman Gangwal s/o Nirmal Gangwal r/o 20 A Mehboob ki kothi, Anasagar Link Road, Ajmer

Vs.

 

M/s.Etihad Airways through chief executive officer, New Airport Road, Khalifa city represented in India by Jet Airways India Ltd. Mumbai

 

Date of Order 12.12.2018

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Hon'ble Mr.K.K.Bagri-Member

 

Mr. Yuvraj Samant counsel for the complainant

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

2

 

The complaint is filed on 30.11.2018 with the contention that the complainant booked tickets to United States of America via Abu Dhabi. The scheduled date was 10.5.2018

for departure and return flight was on 6.8.2018. In the meanwhile the complainant was informed that he had to go to Dubai for some official commitment so he asked the non-applicants to allow him to get down at Abu Dhabi alongwith his luggage. The non-applicant advised him not to change the booking as no money will be returned to him and it was advised that complainant could approach the airport authorities and ground staff to allow them to get down at Abu Dhabi airport but the ground staff has not allowed the complainant for the same. Hence, he has to take flight back to Dubai from India. The complainant asked for compensation of Rs. 24,70,000/- .

 

Heard the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the documents submitted alongwith the complaint.

 

A bare perusal of the complaint goes to show that an inflated claim has been submitted. For financial loss Rs.5,70,000/- and for change of schedule Rs. 4 lakhs were

3

 

claimed whereas as per Ex. 2 ticket for Dubai was purchased only for Rs. 14,638/- meaning thereby that if any deficiency could be attributed to the non-applicant the complainant has incurred the financial burden of Rs. 14,638/- only. Return ticket from Dubai has also been submitted but in any case this expenditure has to be incurred by the complainant if he wants to visit Dubai and further compensation for exploitation, mental agony and emotional distress Rs. 15 lakhs were claimed and reliance could rightly been placed on IV (2014) CPJ 111 (NC) Sushil Gupta Vs. Master Vintage International where the National Commission has held as under:

 

“Thus, in our considered view, the Consumer Fora at various level are required to guard against the inflated claims with mala fide intentions to defeat the hierarchy of the Fora concerned. In the instant case, the amount allegedly spent by the complainant is only rupees eighteen lakh plus but he has added disproportionate demand of compensation of Rs.2,88,55,000/- approximately as compensation to bring this case with the jurisdiction of the National Commission. The above act of the complainant obviously is mala fide with a view to defeat the scheme of the Act. Thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that this Commission does not have pecuniary jurisdiction.”

 

4

 

Hence in view of the above, the complaint is returned with the direction that it may be suitably amended and submitted before the competent Forum. It may also worth mention that the District Forum should consider the merit of the case before admission of the complaint.

 

(K.K.Bagri) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

nm