Delhi

North East

CC/87/2021

Mr. Linu Jins - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Go Airlines(India) ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

17 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 87/21

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

1.             2.	Ms. Linu Jins W/o Sh. Jins P john. R/o Flat No. 78-C, Pocket-F(MIG Flat), GTB Enclave Dilshad Garden, Nand Nagri, North East, Delhi-110093   Mrs. Aleyamma Vattaparambil Mathai W/o Lt. Sh. Chelachuvattil Varkey Joy, Chelachuvattil(House)  Vettickal.P.O., Ernakulam District Kerala-682314 (Through special power of attorney)	Complainants
	Versus
1.       2.	M/s Go Airlines(India) Ltd. Through its Concerned Manager/Director Terminal-2,Indira Gandhi Air Port New Delhi-110037, India.   M/s Easy Trip Planners Ltd. (M/s Easemy Trip) Through its concerned Manager/Director, Building No.223, Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi-110092	Opposite Parties

 

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

23.07.21 09.03.23 17.03.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the   Consumer protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 21.10.19, the Complainant purchased three tickets from the Opposite Party No.2 for a direct flight from Delhi to Cochin vide tickets PNR No. VFGP8R and made the payment through her credit card vide transaction reference No. 29481400585. It is stated by Complainant that it was a direct flight of Opposite Party No.1 from New Delhi to Cochin and was scheduled to take off from Indira Gandhi Airport New Delhi on 20.12.19 at 16.50 hours and schedule to land at Cochin Airport on the same day at 20.00 hours. On 19.12.19, the Complainant received a message from Opposite Party No.1 at 12:46 p.m. regarding the cancellation of the said flight providing with the options to refund of the amounts of booked tickets or to postpone of the journey/tickets for the next available scheduled flights on 21.12.19. In the urgent need of journey, Complainant opted for the second option duly provided by the Opposite Party No.1 and for the same the Opposite Party No.1 alternatively again provided the confirm tickets of non-direct flight (via Mumbai) to Complainants from Delhi to Cochin. The Opposite Party No.1 converted the direct flight journey into via Mumbai journey against the already confirmed flight tickets of the direct journey but still Complainants were compelled to opt alternative flight seen the urgency. Thereafter, on 21.12.19 Opposite Party No.1 duly issued the boarding passes to Complainant against seat No. 26A, 26 B, 26C and accordingly flight take off the journey from New Delhi to Cochin Airport via Mumbai in the same flight. After reaching the Mumbai Airport, Opposite Party No.1 inform Complainant that they are unable to continue their flight from Mumbai to Cochin without given any sufficient reason and offered to the passengers of that flight that they will provide the flight to the passengers towards Mumbai to Cochin only after 25.12.19. As Complainant to reach at Cochin on or before 23.12.19 to celebrate a family function as well as Christmas festival along with their family and relatives. It is further stated that the Complainant No.2 is a senior citizen ailing with deceases of hypertension and diabetic with her two grand children’s and further they have language problem at Mumbai. The Complainant No.1 tried her best to arrange the ticket on the same day from Mumbai to Cochin but could not succeed. Due to this said unavoidable circumstances, the Complainant No.1 purchased the tickets for the journey of Complainant No.2 and 2 children of Indigo flight for Rs. 55,536/- against high immediate charges for the flight on next day i.e. 22.12.19 for Mumbai to Cochin and made the payment through her credit card. It is stated that the Complainant No.1 who booked the said journey tickets of Complainant No.2 and the two children became restless due to the unprofessional behaviour of the Opposite Party No.1 as the Opposite Party No.1 converted the confortable journey of the Complainant No.2 into entirely discomfortable journey. It is further submitted that Opposite Party No.1 neither provided any meal, accommodation to the Complainant at the Mumbai Airport nor any further alternative flight for Cochin and Complainant reach at their destination on 22.12.19 by arranging another said indigo flight. The Complainant sent a legal notice to Opposite Party on 30.12.19 through speed post and received by Opposite Party on 02.01.20. The Complainant booked flight from Opposite Party and due to cancellation of scheduled flight Opposite Party No.1 booked another flight via Mumbai but after reaching Mumbai Opposite Party No.1 failed to provide any further flight to Cochin due to which Complainant faced many difficulties. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 4,00,000/- for mental harassment.  

Case of the Opposite Party No.1

2. The Opposite Party No.1 contested the case and filed written statement. It is stated by the Opposite Party No.1 that the Complainant had booked three tickets on 21.10.19 to travel from Delhi to Cochin for 20.12.19. However, on 19.12.19 the scheduled flight dated 21.10.20 was cancelled due to operational issue which was beyond its control. It is further stated that due to the operational issues, the flight for the entire sector were cancelled. It is stated that the cancellation of flight was beyond the control of its control. Pursuantly, informed all its passenger who were booked on the same flight about the cancellation of flight and gave them option to be re-accommodated on other flights, the Opposite Party offered the Complainant with two alternative choices, i.e. to rescheduled the flight on some other date or cancel the booking and get full refund of the booking amount. Subsequently, on 19.12.19 the Complainants sought Opposite Party No.1 for the rescheduling of the travel journey i.e. from 20.12.19 to 21.12.19 to travel from Delhi to Cochin via Mumbai.
3. Further, as per the scheduled flight the Complainant along with her grandchildren had travelled to Delhi-Mumbai sector as per itinerary. However, while travelling Mumbai to Cochin sector on 21.12.19 the same flight was cancelled due to technical snag in the scheduled flight, which was beyond the control of Opposite Party No.1.
4. It is further stated that due to the technical sang, the flight for the entire sector were cancelled. It is stated that the cancellation of flight was beyond the control of Opposite Party No.1. Pursuantly, informed all its passenger who were booked on the same flight about the cancellation of flight and gave them option to be re-accommodated on other flights, the Opposite Party offered the Complainant with two alternative choices, i.e. to accommodate the Complainant on other flights or cancel the booking and get full refund of the booking amount. It is further stated that the Complainant was not willing to make any of the alternative arrangements that were offered to her, and opted to book ticket for another flight for Mumbai to Cochin without consenting the Opposite Party. Therefore, this Opposite Party No.1 is not responsible for the sole/hasty decision made by the Complainant.
5. In view of the cancellation of the scheduled flight from Mumbai to Cochin dated 21.12.21 this Opposite Party No.1 offered all the facilities as per the procedure to the Complainant and also to other passengers while they were stranded at Mumbai Airport. Hence, the Opposite Party No.1 denies that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on their part.
6. It is further stated that the Director General of Civil Aviation has framed its rules & Civil Aviation Requirement (CAR) for the benefit of the passengers. It is stated that the CAR attached very specifically stated in clause 1.4 and 1.5 that the Airline will not be responsible and not liable to compensate in case it is required to cancel the flight due to any reason beyond its control. Hence, the cancellation of flight is beyond our control. Therefore, the Complainant is falsely accusing this Opposite Party No.1 and misleading this Hon’ble Forum with her false and concocted story. Hereby, this false complaint deserves to be dismissed in limine on all the aforementioned facts and grounds.  
7. Opposite Party No.1 submits that neither is there any deficiency of service nor is there a Consumer dispute in the instant case and therefore the complaint deserves to be dismissed at the very threshold. This Opposite Party is not at all responsible for the alleged loss or mental agony as may be suffered by the Complainant, as for the reasons stated above this Opposite Party has extended his efforts in all possible means to its passenger Complainant. This Opposite Party is not responsible for any monetary claim as raised by the Complainant, and the complaint against this Opposite Party needs to be dismissed without any cost. It is stated that the complaint against this Opposite Party No.1 is misuse of process of law.

Case of the Opposite Party No.2

8. The Opposite Party No.2 contested the case and filed written statement. It is stated by the Opposite Party No.2 that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed due to mis-joinder of parties. It is pertinent to mention here that from bare perusal of the contents of the instant complaint, it is apparent that the Complainant had booked Air tickets of the Airlines namely Go Airlines for their travel. It is pertinent to mention herein that the Complainant herself stated in para 4 of the instant complaint that the Complainant had received a message from Opposite Party No.1 on 19.12.19 at 12:46 p.m. regarding the cancellation of the already scheduled flight for 20.12.19 due to the reason best known to Opposite Party No.1 only. Hence, in the instant complaint Opposite Party No.2 had no role to play. It is quite apparent from the aforesaid facts that the Airlines namely Go Airlines is a necessary party for the proper adjudication of the instant dispute. That the Complainant intentionally did array Ease My trip as the Opposite Party No.2 to extort money from the Opposite Party No.2. It is pertinent to mention herein that the Opposite Party does not play any role in functioning/policies of the Airlines. Thus, the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed on this sole ground only.
9. It is further stated that from the bare reading of the instant complaint, it is evident that the Complainant had failed to disclose any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.2. It is submitted that all the reservations done on the online portal of the Opposite Party No.2 are subject to the terms and conditions of the concerned Airlines. Hence, no cause of action arises on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2.

Rejoinders to the written statement of Opposite Parties

10. The Complainant filed separate rejoinders to the written statements of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

11. The Complainant in support of her complaint filed her affidavit wherein she has supported the averments made in the complaint.

 

Evidence of the Opposite Party No.1

12. In order to prove its case Opposite Party No.1 has filed affidavit of Shri Vishal Mathur, DGM Legal for Opposite Party No.1, having its corporate office at C-1,Wadia International Centre, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400025 presently at New Delhi, wherein the written statement of Opposite Party No.1 have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

13. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the Complainant and Opposite Party No.1. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by Opposite Party No.1.The case of the Complainant is that on 21.10.19 she purchase 3 tickets from the Opposite Party No.2 for a direct flight from Delhi to Cochin and made payment through her credit card. As per Complainant that it was a direct flight of the Opposite Party No.1 from New Delhi to Cochin and was scheduled to take off from New Delhi on 20.12.19 at 16.50 hours and scheduled to land at Cochin Airport on the same day at 20 hours. On 19.12.19, the Complainant received a message from Opposite Party No.1 regarding cancellation of said flight providing with the option to refund of the amount of the booked ticket or to postpone of the journey/ticket for the next available scheduled flight on 21.12.19. In the urgent need of journey, Complainant opted for second option duly provided by Opposite Party No.1 and for the same the Opposite Party No.1 provided the confirmed tickets of non-direct flight (Via Mumbai) to Complainant from Delhi to Cochin. Opposite Party No.1 converted the direct flight journey into via Mumbai journey against the already confirmed flight ticket of the direct journey but still Complainant were compelled to opt alternative flight seen the emergency. Thereafter on 21.12.19 Opposite Party No.1 duly issued the boarding passes to Complainant and accordingly flight take off the journey from New Delhi to Cochin Airport via Mumbai in the same flight. After reaching the Mumbai Airport, Opposite Party No.1 informed Complainant that they are unable to continue their flight from Mumbai to Cochin without giving any sufficient reason and offered to the passengers of that flight that they will provide the flight to the passengers from Mumbai to Cochin only after 25.12.19. It is further mentioned by the Complainant No.2 is that she is a senior citizen ailing with deceases of hypertension and diabetic with her two grand children’s and further they have language problem at Mumbai. The Complainant No.1 tried her best to arrange the ticket on the same day from Mumbai to Cochin but could not succeed. Due to this said unavoidable circumstances, the Complainant No.1 purchased the tickets for the journey of Complainant No.2 and 2 children of Indigo flight for Rs. 55,536/- against high immediate charges for the flight on next day i.e 22.12.19 from Mumbai to Cochin. It is further submitted by the Complainant that Opposite Party No.1 neither provided any meal, accommodation to the Complainant at the Mumbai Airport nor any further alternative flight for Cochin and Complainant reach at their destination on 22.12.19 by arranging another said indigo flight.
14. As per Opposite Party No.1 Complainant had booked 3 tickets on 21.10.19 to travel from Delhi to Cochin for 20.12.19. However, on 19.12.19 the scheduled flight dated 21.10.20 was cancelled due to operational issue which was beyond its control. It is further stated that due to the operational issues, the flight for the entire sector were cancelled. It is stated that the cancellation of flight was beyond their control. Pursuantly, Opposite Party No.1 informed all its passenger who were booked on the same flight about the cancellation of flight and gave them option to be re-accommodated on other flights, the Opposite Party offered the Complainant with two alternative choices, i.e. to rescheduled the flight on some other date or cancel the booking and get full refund of the booking amount. Subsequently, on 19.12.19 the Complainants sought Opposite Party No.1 for the rescheduling of the travel journey i.e. from 20.12.19 to 21.12.19 to travel from Delhi to Cochin via Mumbai.
15. Further, as per the scheduled flight the Complainant along with her grandchildren had travelled to Delhi-Mumbai sector as per itinerary. However, while travelling Mumbai to Cochin sector on 21.12.19 the same flight was cancelled due to technical snag in the scheduled flight, which was beyond the control of Opposite Party No.1.
16. As per Opposite Party due to the technical sang, the flight for the entire sector were cancelled, cancellation of flight was beyond control of Opposite Party No.1. Pursuantly, informed all its passenger who were booked on the same flight about the cancellation of flight and gave them option to be re-accommodated on other flights, the Opposite Party offered the Complainant with two alternative choices, i.e. to accommodate the Complainant on other flights or cancel the booking and get full refund of the booking amount. It is further stated that the Complainant was not willing to make any of the alternative arrangements that were offered to her, and opted to book ticket for another flight for Mumbai to Cochin without consenting the Opposite Party. Therefore, the Opposite Party No.1 is not responsible for the sole/hasty decision made by the Complainant.
17. In view of the cancellation of the scheduled flight from Mumbai to Cochin dated 21.12.21 Opposite Party No.1 offered all the facilities as per the procedure to the Complainant and also to other passengers while they were stranded at Mumbai Airport. Hence, the Opposite Party No.1 denies that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on their part.
18. It is further stated that the Director General of Civil Aviation has framed its rules & Civil Aviation Requirement (CAR) for the benefit of the passengers. It is stated that the CAR attached very specifically stated in clause 1.4 and 1.5 that the Airline will not be responsible and not liable to compensate in case it is required to cancel the flight due to any reason beyond its control. Hence the cancellation of flight is beyond our control. Therefore, the Complainant is falsely accusing this Opposite Party No.1 and misleading this Hon’ble Forum with her false and concocted story. Hereby, this false complaint deserves to be dismissed in limine on all the aforementioned facts and grounds. 
19.  It is admitted by the Opposite Party No.1 that their flight from Mumbai to Cochin was cancelled and as per Opposite Party No.1 the flight was cancelled due to technical snag and cancellation of flight was beyond the control of Opposite Party No.1. As per Civil Aviation Requirement (CAR) Para 1.4 and Para 1.5 which states that:-

Para 1.4 The operating airline would not have the obligation to pay compensation in cases where the cancellations and delays have been caused by an events of force majeure i.e. extraordinary circumstances beyond the control of the airline, the impact of which lead to the cancellation/delay of flight and which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken by the airline. Such extraordinary circumstances may in particular, occur due to political instability, natural disaster, civil war, insurrection or riot, flood, explosion, government regulation or order affecting the aircraft, strikes and labour disputes causing cessation, slowdown or interruption of work or any other factors that are beyond the control of the airline.

Para 1.5 Additionally, airlines would also not be liable to pay any compensation in respect of cancellations and delays clearly attributable to Air Traffic Control, meteorological conditions security risks, or any other causes that are beyond the control of the airline but which effect their ability to operate flights on schedule. Extraordinary circumstances should be deemed to exist where the impact of an air traffic management decision in relation to a particular aircraft or several aircraft on a particular day, give rise to a long delay or delays on overnight delay, or the cancellation of one or more flight by that aircraft, and which could not be avoided even though the airline concerned had taken all reasonable measures to avoid or overcome of the impact of the relevant factor and, therefore, the delays or cancellations.

20. Opposite Party No.1 failed to produce any evidence regarding cancellation of flight was cause as per para 1.4 and para 1.5 of CAR as mentioned above. Opposite Party No.1 also failed to produce any document/evidence of offering alternate flight and any assistance provided to the aged passenger accompanied by two small children in Mumbai which was far off from the place of their destination. Opposite Party No.1 further failed to produce any document of full refund of booking amount of tickets from Mumbai to Cochin to the Complainant. Therefore, there is deficiency on the part of Opposite Party No.1. On the other hand, Opposite Party No.2 stated that all the reservations done on its online portal are subject to terms and conditions of concerned airlines and Opposite Party No.2 does not play any role in functioning/policies of the airlines. So, there is no deficiency on the part of Opposite Party No.2.   
21. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. Opposite Party No.1 is directed to pay Rs. 55,536/-(booking amount of alternate flight from Mumbai to Cochin) to the Complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. Opposite Party No.1 is further directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation charges along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
22. Order announced on 17.03.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room. 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Adarsh Nain) Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President