Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/262/2019

Air India Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sanjay Jain - Opp.Party(s)

Mandeep Singh Chauhan Adv.

28 Nov 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	262 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	31.10.2019
Date of Decision	:	28.11.2019

 

1. Air India through its G.M./Station Manager, SCO 162-164, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh 160034.
2. Air India through its Chairman/Managing Director, Registered Office/headquarter, Air India Ltd., Airlines House, 113, Gurudwara Rakabganj Road, New Delhi 110001.

 

…..Appellants/Opposite P{arties.

Versus

Sanjay Jain son of Sh. D. K. Jain, Resident of House No.1195, Sector 18-C, Chandigarh.

…Respondent/Complainant.

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Mandeep Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the appellants.

 

PER  RAJESH  K.  ARYA, MEMBER

                   This appeal has been filed by the opposite parties against order dated 02.08.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’), vide which, consumer complaint bearing No.627 of 2018 filed by the complainant was allowed and the opposite parties were directed to refund the unutilized air ticket amount of Rs.29,332/- to the complainant besides paying an amount of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.7,000/- towards compensation and litigation expenses. The order was to be complied with within a period of 30 days, failing which the opposite parties were made liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

2.                It is undisputed a fact that the Air India Flight No.AI 547 booked by the respondent/complainant for himself and his family members for 08.05.2018 from Leh to Chandigarh was cancelled by the appellants/opposite parties and the reason assigned for the said cancellation was bad weather. It was only after getting boarding passes that they came to know about the cancellation of the said flight. However, information obtained by the complainant under Right to Information Act, revealed that the flight, in question, was cancelled due to “Operational Reasons”. As a result whereof, the complainant stayed at Leh for a night and travelled back on 09.05.2018 on fresh air tickets of Vistara Airlines by spending an amount of Rs.16,856/-.

3.                Counsel for the appellants argued that on 08.05.2018, three more flights were cancelled due to bad weather over Leh. It was argued that cancellation due to bad weather falls under operational reasons, which was beyond the control of Airline and as such, airline was not liable to pay any compensation, as per DGCA CAR Regulations (Annexure OP-1).

4.                A perusal of evidence and material available on record, we are convinced with the finding given by the Forum in its order that as per information sought by the complainant under Right to Information Act, 2005, cancellation of the flight in question, was due to operational reasons and no evidence, which could be said to be cogent and convincing, was brought before the Forum that on that particular date i.e. 08.05.2018, the weather at Leh was bad, due to which, the flight, in question, was cancelled. The Forum in Para 8 of its order has rightly held that the opposite parties were duty bound to inform about cancellation of flight beforehand and are also liable to make the refund of air ticket, in view of Circular No.23-15/2016-AED dated 06.08.2010 (Annexure OP-1) issued by The Director General of Civil Aviation, New Delhi (Effective – Forthwith).

5.                Further as per Clause 3.3.1 under the heading “Cancellation of Flight” of the aforesaid Circular, in order to reduce inconvenience caused to the passengers as a result of the cancellations of the flights on which they are booked to travel, the opposite parties/appellants – airlines were to inform the respondent/complainant about the cancellation at least two weeks before the scheduled time of departure and arrange alternate flight/refund as acceptable to the passenger. Even otherwise, the airline was to offer an alternate flight or refund. The clause further says that in case the passengers are informed of the cancellation less than two weeks before and up to 24 hour of the scheduled time of departure, the airline shall offer an alternate flight or refund the ticket, as acceptable to the passenger.

6.                Further as per Clause 3.3.2 of the aforesaid Circular, in case, airlines failed to inform the passengers as regards cancellation of the flight, as envisaged in Clause 3.3.1, they have to either provide alternate flight as acceptable to the passenger or provide compensation in addition to the full refund of air ticket in accordance with the stipulated provisions.

7.                It may be stated here that alongwith the appeal, the appellants/opposite parties have also annexed copy of aforesaid circular dated 06.08.2010 but this Circular was effective from 15.08.2010. As per Clause 3.3.2 of this Circular, in case of not informing the passengers about cancellation at least three hours in advance, the Airlines are to provide compensation for the inconvenience caused and also refund the ticket prices in the event they do not wish to travel instead on an alternative or subsequent flight of the carrier concerned. Further as per Clause 3.5.3 (a) of this circular, in addition to compensation envisaged in clause 3.5, the opposite parties were required to refund the air ticket at the price it was purchased.

8.                In the instant case, the complainant was informed about the cancellation of the flight just after obtaining the boarding passes, which left him and his family members nowhere but standard at the airport. Even the opposite parties did not make the required arrangement of alternative flight. As per the documents (Annexures C-12 & C-13), as much as total 8 flights of Go Air, Jet Airways, Spice Jet and Vistara took off on 08.05.2018 and it were only the opposite parties who cancelled their flights including the flight in question and the reason given for such cancellation was operational reason. In the absence of any single document on record to corroborate and prove the plea of bad weather raised by the opposite parties, it cannot be ignored that other eight flights were functional.

9.                In our opinion, the Forum rightly held in Paras 9 & 10 of its order as under:-

“9]       We can well understand the difficulty undergone by the complainant and his family members due to the cancellation of the booked flight from Leh to Delhi for the alleged bad weather at Leh. Although the complainant under the compelled circumstances arranged for air-ticket for next day of other flight, but the Opposite Party NO.1 cannot be burdened with refund of the amount spent by the complainant on another flight to facilitate his journey. 

10]      Definitely, at the same time, we cannot ignore the liability of Opposite Party No.1 to reimburse the ticket(s) amount to the complainant, which remained unutilized as the complainant and his family members had to arrange for air-tickets of another flight of next day. It was the liability of Opposite Parties to refund the booking amount of the tickets as per their circular as mentioned above, which they apparently failed to refund. Therefore, on this account, the Opposite Parties are held liable for being deficient in rendering proper service towards the complainant. Also for thrusting present litigation on the complainant by not refunding the due amount as well for causing harassment on that account, the Opposite Parties liable to compensate the complainant by paying compensatory cost as well as litigation expenses besides their liability to refund the due air-fare.”

10.              During the course of arguments, this Commission when enquired from the Counsel for the appellants that why they did not refund the amount paid by the complainant, when their circular/rules/regulations itself says so, he argued that the opposite parties from the day one were ready to refund the amount but the complainant did not come forward to fill the required form. The argument raised was totally vague as the complainant vide his detailed email dated 10.05.2018 (Annexure C-5) put in grievance and sufferance due to cancellation of the flight, in question, before the airline authorities and requested them to look into the matter on top priority and inform when payment would be transferred, so that he should provide his bank details. What else, the complainant could do. When the appellants/opposite parties did not provide any alternative flight, the respondent/complainant sought refund vide aforesaid email. He also served legal notice upon the opposite parties on 06.06.2018 but the opposite parties were so adamant that they did not refund the amount to the complainant. Thus, the argument raised at this stage that the opposite parties were ready and willing to refund the amount to the complainant from the day one, seems to be an afterthought. Definitely, the opposite parties have been deficient in rendering service to the complainant and further by not refunding the air ticket, they also indulged into unfair trade practice.

11.              For the reasons recorded above, we concur with the findings given by the Forum in its judgment and are of the opinion that the order passed by the Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity.   

12.              For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by the appellants/opposite parties is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. The impugned order dated 02.08.2019 passed by District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint bearing no.627 of 2018 is upheld. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications bearing Nos.887 of 2019 for condonation of delay and 888 of 2019 seeking stay stand disposed of having become infructuous.

13.              Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

14.              The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

28.11.2019.

[RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

 

(RAJESH  K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Ad