National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Air India Express vs Dr. Sumant Bhardwaj & Ors. on 9 October, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3342 OF 2013 (From order dated 27.02.2013 in First Appeal No. 218 of 2010 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, New Delhi) Air India Express Through Manager-Admn., Office of General Manager-S&M ED Office Complex, IGI Airport T-1 Behind Bus Stop, Palam Airport, New Posit Office, New Delhi-110 037 Petitioner Versus 1. Dr. Sumant Bhardwaj 2. Mrs. Mridula Ray Bhardwaj 3. Master Vedat Bhardwaj All Resident at: 153, Supreme Enclave, Mayur Vihar, Phase-1, Delhi Respondents BEFORE: HONBLE MR.JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Suhaas Joshi, Advocate for Jurisperitus. Pronounced On 9th October , 2013 ORDER
PER DR.
S.M. KANTIKAR
1. On 28.04.2005, Complainants booked their onward and return journey tickets through internet with the Air India Express for Flight No. IX-123.The OP issued Tickets with PNR No. IX-00057893 from Delhi to Abu Dhabi on 22.05.2005; and PNR No. IX-00051881 for return journey on 26.05.2005. Thereafter, on 19.05.2005 OP informed the Complainant about the cancellation of his booked flight due to technical snag and to make other arrangements for their journey. On enquiry, OP stated that due to non-availability of the aircraft because of technical snag, the said flight was cancelled.
2. The OP did not make any alternative arrangements, despite repeated requests made by the Complainant. Therefore, the Complainant had cancelled his visit and asked for refund of Rs.11,347/- for Visa charges, to-and-fro journey charges, totaling to Rs.17,000/-, hotel bookings charges Rs.10,680/-, Visa extension charges Rs.5,100, credit card charges for cancellation and other expenses Rs.4,500/-, towards compensation Rs.4,50,000/- totaling to Rs.4,98,627/-, in all, approximately. The OP rejected the demand of complainant and denied any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
3. Therefore, the Complainants filed Complaint No. CC/637/2006, before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, New Delhi (in short, District Forum). District Forum partly allowed the Complaint and ordered OP to pay the Complainant Rs.28,022/- towards the expenses incurred by the Complainant, who was not at fault, Rs.50,000/- towards the compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards the costs of litigation and also directed the OP to refund the difference amount of ticket price i.e. Rs.7287/-.
4. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the OP preferred Appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (in short, State Commission) New Delhi.
5. The State Commission dismissed the appeal while upholding the order of District Forum, with modification and not allowed the refund of difference amount Rs.7287.
6. Against the order of the State Commission, this Revision Petition arose.
7. There is a delay of 68 days in filling this Revision Petition. The Petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay and explained the reasons for the delay as follows:
4. The receipt of the copy of the impugned order was not brought to the knowledge of the official concerned of the Revision Petitioner who on account of being on leave during the time period when a copy of the impugned order was received and thereafter, could not bona fide takes necessary action of time.
5. Subsequently the Counsel for Revision Petitioner in bona fide belief that the copy of the impugned order was yet to be received by the Revision Petitioner applied for the same and received the same on 07.05.2013.
6. Upon receipt of the copy of the impugned order, the Counsel for the Revision Petitioner came to know that a copy of the Order had already been sent directly to the office of the Revision Petitioner on 03.04.2013.
We are not satisfied with such vague and evasive reasons for the delay of 68 days, in filing this revision. It is well settled by various judgments of Honble Supreme Court and this Commission that condoning such delay will defeat the purpose of Consumer Protection Act.
8. In the Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr. 2012 STPL (Web) 132 (SC), Honble Supreme Court was pleased to hold:
13. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/ years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay.
Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.
9. Following few judgments support our view:-
Anshul Aggarwal V. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)-I (2009) SLT 701-2009 (2) Scale 108 and Ram Lal and Others V. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361.
Furthermore, the C.P. Act envisages summary procedure where special period is mentioned for disposing of appeals and revision petitions. This Commission cannot adopt excessive liberal approach, which would defeat the very purpose of the C.P. Act.
10. We have heard Mr. Suhaas Joshi the Counsel for the Petitioner. He reiterated that there was no deficiency on the part of the OP. It is contended that OP had acted as per terms and conditions mentioned in ticket. The said flight was cancelled due to Force Majeure conditions and it was brought to the notice of the complainant, on 19/5/2005 and OP offered a full refund of the ticket amount.
11. It is further contended that the OPs did not provide alternative seats on Air India Limited because the Air India Express and Air India Ltd. are two different Airlines. Further, it is reiterated that the ticket issued by the OP, being concessional, is non-endorsable for any other Airlines. We have perused the e-ticket and the rules mentioned therein, the relevant of which is reproduced, as under :
In case, circumstances beyond its control, Air India Express, may without notice, cancel, delay or re- route a flight ,in such case, Air-India Express shall either ;
Carry the passenger on another of its scheduled passenger service on the same sector provided space is available, OR Make full refund of the ticket with no further liability to the Airlines (the passenger will be required to collect the refund from the point of purchase).
12. The complainants have booked their ticket about one month in advance of their proposed date of journey, i.e. 22/5/2005. But, on 19/5/2005, i.e. 3 days prior to the date of journey, the OP informed the complainant about cancellation of flight due to technical snag. The OP did not produce any evidence or affidavit from the technical expert about the cancellation of flight due to technical snag. Hence, such submissions made by OP are unbelievable. The OP Airline did not furnish proper and justifiable ground for cancellation of the flight, therefore, OP is held liable.
13. Even otherwise, the technical snag could be corrected till 22/5/2005, i.e. within three days from 19/5/2005; but, the OP had not attempted for the correction and just informed the passengers about the cancellation of flight. Therefore, it was a most confused state of mind for most of the passengers; they were helpless due to such attitude of OPs. It shows the casual approach of OP, who cant take the passengers for a ride, due to which, the Complainants have experienced hardships.
14. Therefore, we are of considered view, that OP cannot divulge from its responsibilities, by mere printing the rules on the e-ticket, but it appears to be a forcible attempt by the OP. The passengers suffer hardship in such situation; hence, once the tickets have been issued by the Airlines, it becomes their duty to transport passengers to their destination. If the Airlines are not able to do so, it is incumbent upon them to explain their inability with candid proof and the reason for the same. We find these rules framed by the OPs are absolutely unilateral and appear to be coercive in nature.
15. The explanation given by the OP in this regard is, that alternative arrangement for the flight, in another Airline, was not possible, because the tickets issued to the Complainants were concessional tickets and the tickets were un-endorsable. This submission is unsustainable.
16. Therefore, we are of considered opinion, that this revision petition is dismissed on ground of delay and also on merits.
17. Accordingly, we uphold the order of State Commission and direct the OP to deposit Rs.25000/- as a punitive cost in PAO Consumer Aid Fund. OP should comply entire order within 60 days; otherwise it will carry interest @ 9% p.a. till its realization.
.
(J.M. MALIK J.) PRESIDING MEMBER .
(Dr. S.M. KANTIKAR) MEMBER Mss-11