State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kingfisher Airlines Ltd vs Mr. Jayant Mehta on 15 July, 2013
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
BEFORE THE
HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
First Appeal
No. A/12/144
(Arisen out
of Order Dated 13/01/2012 in Case No. 195/2008 of District
Mumbai(Suburban))
1. KINGFISHER AIRLINES LTD
KINGFISHER HOUSE, OFF. WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY, VILE
PARLE EAST, MUMBAI-400099
THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. A HAMID
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. MR. JAYANT MEHTA
A/18, BLUE DIAMOND, GILBERT HILL ROAD, ANDHERI WEST,
MUMBAI 400058.
MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA.
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'ABLE MR. Narendra Kawde PRESIDING MEMBER
PRESENT:
MR M. SHINE K , Advocate for the Appellant
Adv.Sabana Ansari
......for the Respondent
ORDER
(Per Shri Narendra Kawde, Honble Member ) (1) This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 13/01/2012 in Consumer Complaint No.195/2008 ( Mr.Jayant Mehta vs. 1. Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. & anr.), passed by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Mumbai (District Forum in short). The District Forum partly allowed the consumer complaint holding deficiency in service and directed the appellant/opponent airline company (hereinafter referred to as Airlines Company) to pay `1,00,000/- as compensation with interest @9% p.a. to the complainant/respondent. Aggrieved with the impugned order, the airlines company filed this appeal on the ground that the District Forum failed to appreciate that the complainant never annexed the complete air ticket/copies allegedly purchased for return journey from Kolkata to Mumbai via Bangalore on 19/11/2007. It is further averred that the District Forum also failed to appreciate terms and conditions printed on the air ticket which are binding on the respondent/complainant. Cancellation/delays and the changes in schedule by the airlines often take place and therefore the condition to deal with such contingencies is printed on the air ticket which has not been considered by the District Forum prior to passing the impugned order. Since purchase of air ticket is a document signed by the person is a document containing contractual terms is normally bound by them even though he has not read them and even though he has ignored its precise legal effect.
As held by the Honble Supreme Court in the matter of Bharathi Knitting Company vs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Airfreight Ltd. 1996-SCC-4-704. The order impugned suffers from legal infirmities as averred by the appellant airlines company.
(2) Heard both the advocates finally and perused the record placed before us. It is not in dispute that the complainant booked four tickets for himself and his family members to travel from Kolkata to Mumbai on 18/11/2007 by flight No.DN722. The said flight was cancelled. Intimation of cancellation was given on telephone to the complainant on 17/11/2007 at 1756 hrs by one of the Service Desk Personnel about cancellation of the said flight and as provided in the condition printed on the air ticket option to take alternate flight schedule on 20/11/2007 was declined by the complainant. The amount paid for booking tickets was duly refunded to the complainant.
(3) However, the contention of the complainant that he had urgent work in Mumbai and the re-opening of the school of his children was to take place on 19/11/2007, he was compelled to take next available flight to Mumbai and therefore he booked the air ticket for Jet Airways and e-booking details were produced before the District Forum (available in the appeal compilation). The main contention of the appellant/airlines company is that air tickets of Jet Airways allegedly booked and purchased were not produced on record, yet District Forum relied on mere e-booking and held that the complainant along with his family was required to travel with great inconvenience as Jet Airways was not direct, but it was hopping flight (via Bangalore). The learned advocate of the appellant relied on various judgments and pronouncements in support of his contention as spelt out in appeal memo and argued that cancellation of flight was beyond the control of the airlines company; therefore, reason for the same was not required to be notified to each and every passenger. Alternatively, as provided in the terms and conditions of the air ticket, travel by alternate flight is available in case it is agreeable to the passenger or alternatively the full refund of the ticket is possible.
(4) Undisputedly, on cancellation of the flight, the complainant was contacted one day in advance and offered the next available flight of the airlines which was scheduled to take place on 20/11/2007 from Kolkata to Mumbai. This offer was not accepted by the complainant and therefore, the amount as paid on account of tickets was refunded.
Though not satisfied with the action taken by the appellant airlines company, the complainant preferred consumer complaint claiming heavy compensation for inconvenience allegedly he has suffered. There was no evidence whatsoever as pleaded by the learned advocate of the airlines company produced on record to claim the compensation (including subsequent air tickets) for mental agony and inconvenience as laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the matter of Maula Bux vs. Union of India 1969-SCC-2-554. Vital legal points have not been considered by the District Forum and therefore the order impugned as pleaded by him deserves to be set aside. The learned advocate of the complainant could not point out any documentary evidence laid before the District Forum in support of travel by Jet Airlines on the next date for Bangalore except the e-booking of intended travel. So also, the advocate could not brought to our notice the evidence laid in support of compensation on account of mental agony and the inconvenience caused to the complainant in view of the reported urgency to travel and reach Mumbai on 19/11/2007 i.e. next day.
The District Forum ignored the offer made as provided in the terms & conditions for taking up alternate flight and also not considered production of the actual boarding pass/tickets of Jet Airlines. Impugned order is not based on sound reasoning and came to be passed without any documentary evidence to award monetary claim and compensation as claimed by the complainant. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. We hold accordingly and pass the following order.
ORDER The appeal is allowed.
The impugned order dated 13/01/2012 in Consumer complaint no.195/2008 passed by Mumbai Suburban District Forum is hereby quashed and set aside. In the result, the consumer complaint no.195/2008 stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Copied be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced on 15th July, 2013.
[HON'ABLE MR.
Narendra Kawde] PRESIDING MEMBER PGG