State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jitender Kumar Garg(Advocate) vs Spice Jet Ltd. on 22 October, 2024
FA/164/2023 D.O.D.: 22.10.2024
MR.JITENDER KUMAR GARG VS SPICE JET LTD
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTESREDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 20.04.2023
Date of hearing: 23.07.2024
Date of Decision: 22.10.2024
FIRST APPEAL NO.-164/2023
IN THE MATTER OF
MR. JITENDER KUMAR GARG
CHAMBER NUMBER K-72,
TIS HAZARI COURT
DELHI:110054
(Through: Mr. Kapil Chawla, Advocate)
...Appellant
VERSUS
SPICE JET LTD
321, UDYOG VIHAR, PHASE-IV
GURUGRAM, HARYANA-122016
(Through: Mr. Jasbeer Chaudhary, Legal Manager)
.......Respondent
DISMISSED PAGE 1 OF 18
FA/164/2023 D.O.D.: 22.10.2024
MR.JITENDER KUMAR GARG VS SPICE JET LTD
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present: Appellant in person alongwith Mr.K Rahman.
None for the Respondent.
PER :HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,
PRESIDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:
"The present complaint has been filed by Sh. Jitender Kumar Garg, the complainant against Spice Jet Ltd., OP with the prayer for refund of 180 Dirham equivalent to Rs.3,780/-, Rs.25,000/- as litigation charges. Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and pendentlite interest @ 12% per annum.
1. Facts necessary for the disposal of present complaint are that, on 26/07/2019, the complainant along with his friend, Sh.Manoj Kumar / Aggarwal, boarded return flight from Dubai to Delhi vide PNR No. UYPT9J. The complainant has stated that boarding passes were issued in sequence to the complainant and his above named friend as they were together in queue and travelling under the same PNR. The total weight of the hand baggage was 14.5 kg and individually 10 kg and 4.5 kg respectively. The complainant was asked to pay 60 Dirham/kg (Rs. 3780/- ) as the hand bag was 3 kg in excess than permissible weight.
2. It has been stated by the complainant that his request was declined by staff of OP to calculate combined baggage weight of both the passengers i.e. the complainant and his friend, as they were travelling together on same PNR and their check- in-baggage were also calculated jointly at the time of issue of boarding pass. In the complaint it has been averred that the DISMISSED PAGE 2 OF 18 FA/164/2023 D.O.D.: 22.10.2024 MR.JITENDER KUMAR GARG VS SPICE JET LTD complainant was not allowed to board the flight till the payment for excess baggage was made and the staff of OP not only threatened and misbehaved with the complainant but also tried to throw the contents of the baggage.
3. On 14/09/2019, a letter was sent to the customer care department of OP apart from emails dated 29/08/2019, requesting them to refund 180 Dirham wrongly charged towards excess baggage. On 05/09/2019, complainant received a reply stating that as both the passengers had checked in separately, therefore, OP had rightly charged for excess baggage. The complainant demanded the CCTV footage refuting the contentions of OP. Feeling aggrieved with act/ omission on the part of OP, hence the present complaint. The Complainant has stated that the present complaint is within limitation period as the cause of action arose on 26.07.2019, when he was forced to pay excess baggage charges and thereafter due to pandemic COVID the complaint could not be filed.
4. The Complainant has annexed the copy of the ticket, Receipt for payment of excess baggage charges, e-mails exchanged between the Complainant and the OP.
5. Notice of the present complaint was issued to OP. Thereafter, written statement was filed by OP. They have taken several objections in their defence. They have submitted that the present complaint was false, frivolous and misconceived. The passenger/guests are governed by terms of carriage contained in the e-ticket framed in accordance with carriage by Air Act, 1972 and notification regarding application of the International Carriage as per which:-
Baggage Allowance Hand/Cabin Baggage: Hand/ Cabin baggage of maximum 7 kg. (Which would include Laptop and duty free shopping bags) having maximum overall dimensions of: 108 cm.
DISMISSED PAGE 3 OF 18
FA/164/2023 D.O.D.: 22.10.2024
MR.JITENDER KUMAR GARG VS SPICE JET LTD
(L+W+H) on Bombardier aircraft, and 115 cm. (L+W+H) on Boeing aircraft, is allowed to be carried per passenger, free of cost. Passengers with infants are allowed to carry an additional piece of hand baggage of maximum 7 kg., not exceeding the size dimensions, as mentioned herein before.
8.1 Baggage Allowance 8.1.1 Hand/Cabin Baggage: Hand/ Cabin baggage of maximum 7 kg. (Which would include Laptop and duty free shopping bags) having maximum overall dimensions of: 108 cm. (L+W+H) on Bombardier aircraft, and 115 cm. (L+W+H) on Boeing aircraft, is allowed to be carried per passenger, free of cost. Passengers with infants are allowed to carry an additional piece of hand maximum 7 kg not exceeding the size dimension as mentioned herein before Checked in Baggage The free checked baggage allowance on spice-jet international flights is as follows.
Sector Checked Excess
in baggage
baggage per Kg.
allowance
Ex. India to 20 kg INR 525
Male
Ex. India to 30Kg INR 525
Muscat
Ex Dubai 30Kg AED
To India 60+40
AED*
Ex Ras Al- 30kg (40 AED
Kg in case 60+40
of Travel AED
Khaimah to Between
India 10th
Mar,2021
DISMISSED PAGE 4 OF 18
FA/164/2023 D.O.D.: 22.10.2024
MR.JITENDER KUMAR GARG VS SPICE JET LTD
and 30th
April,
2021
Ex Kabul to 30Kg USD 9
India
Additional charges charged by the service provider and handling Charges.
8.2 HAND BAGGAGE 8.2.1 Unless otherwise advised by Spice Jet, only one piece of Hand Baggage per Passenger will be allowed. The dimensions of the Hand Baggage should not exceed (L+B+H)-55cm +35cm+25cm totalling 115cms (45 inches) on Boeing flights and 50cm+35cm+23cm totalling 108cms (42.5 inches) on Bombardier flights. The hand baggage allowance is 7 kg (which would include Laptop and duty free shopping bags) per adult and child (any passenger above 2 yrs of age). Strolley bags with the above specified dimensions will be allowed.
Less than stipulated weight of check-in baggage does not qualify for the difference of weight in hand baggage and vice versa.
8.2.3 SpiceJet may specify other maximum dimensions and/or weight for Hand Baggage. If SpiceJet has not done so, except as specified in 8.2.1, Hand Baggage which the Passenger carries onto the aircraft must fit under the seat in front or in an enclosed storage compartment in the cabin of the aircraft. If the Passenger's Hand Baggage cannot be stored in this manner, or is of excessive weight, or is considered unsafe for any reason, it must be carried as Checked Baggage, subject to Articles 8.6 and 8.7.
DISMISSED PAGE 5 OF 18
FA/164/2023 D.O.D.: 22.10.2024
MR.JITENDER KUMAR GARG VS SPICE JET LTD
6. They have submitted that conditions of Carriage of the Airlines constitute a valid and binding contract between the passenger and the Airlines, They have further submitted that vide e-mail dated 10.09.2019, the Complainant was duly informed that the excess baggage had been charged as per the terms of Carriage, Thus there was no deficiency in services on their part, hence, Complainant was not entitled to compensation. They have stated that co-passenger Mr. Manoj had boarded flight at 22:09 hrs and the Complainant boarded the flight at 22:18 hrs. They have denied that both the hand baggages were kept at the weighing machine or their combined weight was not more than 14.5 kg or individually they weighed 10 kg and 4 kg. They have stated that as the weight of the baggage of Complainant was 10 kg (3kg in excess) thus he was asked to pay excess baggage charges of 180 AED. Rest of the contents of the complaint have also been denied. They have annexed Terms of Carriage as Annexure R1.
7. Rejoinder to the Written Statement of OP was filed by the Complainant. It has been stated that the terms of Carriage as relied upon by OP are not applicable to the case of the complaint as the combined weight being carried by the Complainant and his friend was 14.5 Kg as the ticket was a joint ticket with same PNR number. The Complainant has alleged that the Complainant was stopped and his friend was allowed to go and was even threatened to be handed over to the Police authorities with false allegations.
8. The Complainant has stated that OP be directed to produce CCTV footage to establish that the Complainant was forced to pay excess amount towards the baggage. It has also been submitted that on 09.05.2022, OP had orally offered a voucher of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.1,000/- as cash, which was unacceptable to the Complainant being too meagre.
9. Evidence by way of Affidavit was filed by the parties. Complainant has deposed on oath the contents of the DISMISSED PAGE 6 OF 18 FA/164/2023 D.O.D.: 22.10.2024 MR.JITENDER KUMAR GARG VS SPICE JET LTD complaint and has reiterated the allegations. It has been reiterated that despite letter to customer care of Op of date 14.09.2019, the amount charged for excess baggage was not refunded.
10.OP has got examined Sh. Jasbir Chaudhary, Manager (Legal), on their behalf. The contents of their Written Statement have been repeated. They have stated that e-tickets, is a concluded contract between the Complainant and OP as the stipulations had been accepted by the Complainant at the time of booking, thus, the Complainant was estopped from disputing the same. They have got exhibited the Terms of Carriage as Ex.RWI/1.
11. We have heard the arguments on behalf of both the parties and have gone through the Written Submissions. We have also perused the material placed on record. The Complainant has alleged that not only he was forced to pay 180 AED on account of excess baggage of 3 kg but also the staff of OP misbehaved with him. As per the Complainant, OP should have taken the combined weight of hand baggage and not individual as 2 passengers were travelling under one PNR-
UYPT9J. Even in email written to
[email protected] dated 16.09.2019, the
Complainant has stated that their hand baggage was jointly weighed on the machine and till then his friend was with him. The complainant has also demanded the CCTV footage of that period.
12.If we look at another email dated 17/9/2019, where the complainant has stated:
Dear sir, When 02 passengers are traveling on same pnr, thn why the weight is not calculated jointly. Aftr getting our baggegs weight done on the weight machine at the time of DISMISSED PAGE 7 OF 18 FA/164/2023 D.O.D.: 22.10.2024 MR.JITENDER KUMAR GARG VS SPICE JET LTD boarding the flight only v can come to know about the total weight of the each bag of both the passengers, after purchasing at duty free shop, which is not possible before at any point of time..
But i was not allowed to divide the weight equally in our both hand baggages., though it was not required.
Our total weight of both the hand baggages collectively was 14.5 kg only..
1 m fail to understand tht wht was d need to divide the weight in each bag equally, but ur staff was adamant n not allowed me to keep my goods in other/second hand baggage of my friend traveling with me at the same time n same pur. though it was not required to do so.
U people r not trying to understand this simple thing and just trying to give false n unwarranted excuses again n again just to grab my money which was charged frm me in the garb of excess baggage. though there was no excess baggage of both of us as weighted in total...."
13. The Complainant has not produced any document on record to show that weight of combined baggage is to be considered. However, OP has refuted the allegation by placing on record the Terms of Carriage. As per clause 8.1.1:-
Baggage Allowance 8.1.1 Hand/Cabin Baggage: Hand/ Cabin baggage of maximum 7 kg. (Which would include Laptop and duty free shopping bags) having maximum overall dimensions of: 108 cm.
(L+W+H) on Bombardier aircraft, and 115 cm. (L+W+H) on Boeing aircraft, is allowed to be carried per passenger, DISMISSED PAGE 8 OF 18 FA/164/2023 D.O.D.: 22.10.2024 MR.JITENDER KUMAR GARG VS SPICE JET LTD free of cost. Passengers with infants are allowed to carry an additional piece of hand maximum 7 kg not excedding the size dimension as mentioned herein before If a passenger is carrying a checked-in baggage which is less than the stipulated weight Also, passengers travelling under the same PNR are allowed to club their check-in baggage only However, the weight of each baggage must not exceed 32 kg as per the airport baggage restriction.
14. Hence, Clause 8.1.1 of the Terms of Carriage, as per which, maximum of 7Kg hand/cabin baggage is allowed to be carried per passenger, free of cost with specific dimensions and not per PNR. Therefore, the contention of the Complainant that combined weight under one PNR is to be considered does not hold ground. Also per the same clause passengers travelling under the same PNR allowed to club their check-in baggage only. However the weight of each bag must not exceed 32 kg as per the airport baggage restriction, therefore the Complainant was allowed to club the check-in baggage with his friend.
15. Secondly, the Complainant has also denied that the boarding time of Mr. Manoj Aggarwal, friend of the Complainant was 22:09 hrs and that of the Complainant was 22:18 stating that his friend was allowed to go and he was stopped. In support of his allegations, the crucial piece of evidence would have been the boarding pass. The boarding pass issued by OP would have depicted the exact details. However, the same has not been filed by the Complainant. Further, the complainant has also not got examined Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, co-passenger to support his allegation of misbehaviour and threat extended by the staff of DISMISSED PAGE 9 OF 18 FA/164/2023 D.O.D.: 22.10.2024 MR.JITENDER KUMAR GARG VS SPICE JET LTD OP. As far as allegation of non supply of CCTV footage is concerned, it is the Airport Authority, which is in the control of the CCTV footage and not OP. It is settled principle of law that the complainant has to prove his own cas complaint.
16. Therefore, in the facts and circumstance of the present complaint there is no deficiency in services on the part of OP in charging for excess hand baggage. As far as the allegations of misbehaviour by the staff of the OP is concerned, the Complainant has failed to prove his allegations. Hence, the present Complaint is dismissed, without orders to cost."
2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 17.03.2023, whereby it held as under:
"11. We have heard the arguments on behalf of both the parties and have gone through the Written Submissions. We have also perused the material placed on record. The Complainant has alleged that not only he was forced to pay 180 AED on account of excess baggage of 3 kg but also the staff of OP misbehaved with him. As per the Complainant, OP should have taken the combined weight of hand baggage and not individual as 2 passengers were travelling under one PNR-UYPT9J. Even in email written to [email protected] dated 16.09.2019, the Complainant has stated that their hand baggage was jointly weighed on the machine and till then his friend was with him. The complainant has also demanded the CCTV footage of that period.
12. If we look at another email dated 17/9/2019, where the complainant has stated:
Dear sir, DISMISSED PAGE 10 OF 18 FA/164/2023 D.O.D.: 22.10.2024 MR.JITENDER KUMAR GARG VS SPICE JET LTD Groutes Reet When 02 passengers are traveling on same pnr, thn why the weight is not calculated jointly. Aftr getting our baggegs weight done on the weight machine at the time of boarding the flight only v can come to know about the total weight of the each bag of both the passengers, after purchasing at duty free shop, which is not possible before at any point of time..
But i was not allowed to divide the weight equally in our both hand baggages., though it was not required.
Our total weight of both the hand baggages collectively was 14.5 kg only..
1 m fail to understand tht wht was d need to divide the weight in each bag equally, but ur staff was adamant n not allowed me to keep my goods in other/second hand baggage of my friend traveling with me at the same time n same pur. though it was not required to do so.
U people r not trying to understand this simple thing and just trying to give false n unwarranted excuses again n again just to grab my money which was charged frm me in the garb of excess baggage. though there was no excess baggage of both of us as weighted in total...."
13. The Complainant has not produced any document on record to show that weight of combined baggage is to be considered. However, OP has refuted the allegation by placing on record the Terms of Carriage. As per clause 8.1.1:-
Baggage Allowance 8.1.1 DISMISSED PAGE 11 OF 18 FA/164/2023 D.O.D.: 22.10.2024 MR.JITENDER KUMAR GARG VS SPICE JET LTD Hand/Cabin Baggage: Hand/ Cabin baggage of maximum 7 kg. (Which would include Laptop and duty free shopping bags) having maximum overall dimensions of: 108 cm.
(L+W+H) on Bombardier aircraft, and 115 cm. (L+W+H) on Boeing aircraft, is allowed to be carried per passenger, free of cost. Passengers with infants are allowed to carry an additional piece of hand maximum 7 kg baggage of n mentioned hereinbefore exceeding the size dimensions, as mentioned herein before.
If a passenger is carrying a checked-in baggage which is less than the stipulated weight Also, passengers travelling under the same PNR are allowed to club their check-in baggage only However, the weight of each baggage must not exceed 32 kg as per the airport baggage .
14. Hence, Clause 8.1.1 of the Terms of Carriage, as per which, maximum of 7Kg hand/cabin baggage is allowed to be carried per passenger, free of cost with specific dimensions and not per PNR. Therefore, the contention of the Complainant that combined weight under one PNR is to be considered does not hold ground. Also per the same clause passengers travelling under the same PNR allowed to club their check-in baggage only. However the weight of each bag must not exceed 32 kg as per the airport baggage restriction, therefore the Complainant was allowed to club the check-in baggage with his friend.
15. Secondly, the Complainant has also denied that the boarding time of Mr. Manoj Aggarwal, friend of the Complainant was 22:09 hrs and that of the Complainant was 22:18 stating that his friend was allowed to go and he was stopped. In support of his allegations, the crucial piece of evidence would have been the boarding pass. The boarding pass issued by OP would have depicted the exact details.
DISMISSED PAGE 12 OF 18
FA/164/2023 D.O.D.: 22.10.2024
MR.JITENDER KUMAR GARG VS SPICE JET LTD
However, the same has not been filed by the Complainant. Further, the complainant has also not got examined Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, co-passenger to support his allegation of misbehavior and threat extended by the staff of OP. As far as allegation of non supply of CCTV footage is concerned, it is the Airport Authority, which is in the control of the CCTV footage and not OP. It is settled principle of law that the complainant has to prove his own cas complaint.
16. Therefore, in the facts and circumstance of the present complaint there is no deficiency in services on the part of OP in charging for excess hand baggage. As far as the allegations of misbehavior by the staff of the OP is concerned, the Complainant has failed to prove his allegations. Hence, the present Complaint is dismissed, without orders to cost.
2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal, contending that the District Commission allegations of misbehavior by the Respondents/Opposite Party cannot be established in the absence of evidence by way of affidavit of Mr. Manoj Aggarwal. Secondly, it is submitted that when the Respondent/Opposite Party had offered compensation as recorded in order dated 04.07.2022 passed by the District Commission, the deficiency is deemed to be admitted, else the District Commission could have directed the Appellant/Complainant to filed the same. Thirdly, it is submitted that the District Commission did not consider the plea that both the Appellant and his friend Mr. Manoj Aggarwal were ready for shifting/Adjusting of excess baggage in other bag but they were not allowed. Lastly, it is prayed that if this Commission deems fit then affidavit of Shri Manoj Aggarwal can be filed before this Commission or the matter be remanded back to the District Commission for this purpose.
DISMISSED PAGE 13 OF 18
FA/164/2023 D.O.D.: 22.10.2024
MR.JITENDER KUMAR GARG VS SPICE JET LTD
3. Vide order dated 29.04.2024, Respondent was directed to file the reply failing which his right to file the reply shall stand closed. However, no reply has been filed by the Respondent. Consequently, the right of the Respondent to file the reply was closed.
4. We have perused the material available on record and heard the counsel for the Appellant.
5. A perusal of the contents of the present appeal makes it clear that the entire case of the Appellants boils down to two grounds for challenging the Impugned Order i.e. the requirement of filing the affidavit of the Appellant's friend Mr. Manoj Agrawal before the District Commission to prove the allegations of misbehavior and the alleged admission of deficiency by the Respondent/Opposite Party as contained in the order dated 04.07.2022.
6. Therefore, the first question for consideration before us is whether the District Commission erred in observing that the allegations of misbehavior could not be proved for want of evidence affidavit.
7. In order to resolve the aforesaid controversy, we deem it appropriate to refer to section 38, clause 5 & 6 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 reproduced hereunder as :
"38. Procedure on admission of complaint.--(1) The District Commission shall, on admission of a complaint, or in respect of cases referred for mediation on failure of settlement by mediation, proceed with such complaint......
.......(5) No proceedings complying with the procedure laid down in [sub-sections (2) and (3)] shall be called in question in any court on the ground that the principles of natural justice have not been complied with.
DISMISSED PAGE 14 OF 18
FA/164/2023 D.O.D.: 22.10.2024
MR.JITENDER KUMAR GARG VS SPICE JET LTD
(6) Every complaint shall be heard by the District Commission on the basis of affidavit and documentary evidence placed on record:"
8. A perusal of the aforesaid statutory position makes it clear that every complaint shall be heard by the District Commission on the basis of affidavit and documentary evidence placed on record. Therefore, it is crystal clear that as per the framework provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, filing of evidence by way of Affidavit is a statutory requirement and is mandatory as regards the procedural law. However, it is clear from the record that no evidence affidavit of Mr. Manoj Agrawal was filed before the District Commission. Consequently, in the absence of any evidence by way of affidavit on record, the District Commission held that the Complainant/Appellant failed to establish the allegation of misbehavior, which in our opinion does not warrant any interference.
9. We shall now deal with the second limb of contention of the Appellant that the offer of voucher as recorded in the order dated 04.07.2022 amounts to admission of deficiency on the part of the Respondent/Opposite Party.
10. In this regard, we deem it appropriate to refer to the term deficiency as defined under section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, reproduced hereunder as :
"(11) "deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service and includes-- (i) any act of negligence or omission or DISMISSED PAGE 15 OF 18 FA/164/2023 D.O.D.: 22.10.2024 MR.JITENDER KUMAR GARG VS SPICE JET LTD commission by such person which causes loss or injury to the consumer; and (ii) deliberate withholding of relevant information by such person to the consumer"
11. We further deem it appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Civil Appeal No. 5759 Of 2009 titled as 'Sgs India Ltd. Versus Dolphin International Ltd' decided on 06.10.2021, relevant extract reproduced hereunder as:
"19. The onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service. In a judgment of this Court reported as Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines &Anr. 4 , this court held that the burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it."
12. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Apex Court in a Judgment reported as Indigo Airlines v. Kalpana Rani Debbarma & Ors. (2020) 9 SCC 424, held that the initial onus to substantiate the factum of deficiency in service committed by the opposite party was primarily on the complaint, held as under:-
"28. In our opinion, the approach of the Consumer Fora is in complete disregard of the principles of pleadings and burden of proof. First, the material facts constituting DISMISSED PAGE 16 OF 18 FA/164/2023 D.O.D.: 22.10.2024 MR.JITENDER KUMAR GARG VS SPICE JET LTD deficiency in service are blissfully absent in the complaint as filed. Second, the initial onus to substantiate the factum of deficiency in service committed by the ground staff of the Airlines at the airport after issuing boarding passes was primarily on the respondents. That has not been discharged by them. The Consumer Fora, however, went on to unjustly shift the onus on the appellants because of their failure to produce any evidence. In law, the burden of proof would shift on the appellants only after the respondents/complainants had discharged their initial burden in establishing the factum of deficiency in service."
13. A perusal of the aforementioned decisions makes it clear that deficiency is to be proved and not assumed. A mere offer to settle the dispute by way providing vouchers cannot by any stretch of imagination be considered as deficiency. Furthermore, the onus of proving the deficiency is on the Complainant, which in the present case, the Complainant/Appellant miserably failed to establish. Therefore, we opine that the aforesaid contention of the Appellant holds no merit.
14. Lastly, we deal with the Appellant's plea that both the Appellant and his friend Shri Manoj Aggarwal were ready for shifting/Adjusting of excess baggage in other bag but they were not allowed.
15. Here, it is to be noted that the Appellant has merely made bald averments and has not placed on record any documents to prove the aforesaid allegations as to the conduct of the Respondents. A mere allegation devoid of any cogent proof or evidence cannot be the basis for arriving at the conclusion that the Respondent/Opposite Party was deficient in providing its services.
DISMISSED PAGE 17 OF 18
FA/164/2023 D.O.D.: 22.10.2024
MR.JITENDER KUMAR GARG VS SPICE JET LTD
16. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid discussion, we opine that the Impugned Order dated 17.03.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputed Redressal Commission-I (North District), Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi-110054 in CC No.204/2021 warrants no interference. Consequently, the present Appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
17. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
18. The Judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
19. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (PINKI) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced On:
22.10.2024 LR.-G.P.K DISMISSED PAGE 18 OF 18