State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Air India(Nacil) vs Yash Pal on 6 March, 2018
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No. 802 of 2017 Date of Institution: 04.07.2017 Date of Decision: 06.03.2018 Air India (NACIL), through Station Manager, SCO No.162-164, Sector 34A, Chandigarh. .....Appellant-Opposite Party No.1 Versus 1. Yash Pal son of Kali Ram, resident of House No.502, GHS-70, Sector 20, Panchkula, Haryana. .....Respondent No.1-Complainant No.1 2. Akbar Online Booking Company (Private) Limited, First Floor 62, Janjikar Street, Bombay-400003. ......Respondent No.2-Opposite Party No.2 CORAM: Mr. R.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Member. Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member. Present: Mr. S.R. Chaudhary, counsel for the appellant. Mr. Yash Pal, Advocate-respondent No.1 in person. Mr. A.K. Pathania, Branch Manager for the respondent No.2. O R D E R
R.K. BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER As per complainants, they booked three air tickets online through Opposite Party (in short 'OP') No.2 on 07.11.2015. They were to travel from Pondicherry to Banglore in Flight No.92510 of OP No.1 i.e. Air India because they were having connected Flight No.404 of OP No.1 from Banglore to New Delhi. In the evening of 06.11.2015, they were informed that Flight No.9510 for 07.11.2015 was cancelled. As no alternative arrangement was made, they were forced to hire taxi to go from Pondicherry to Banglore and spent Rs.10,000/-, so, OPs be directed to refund the amount spent by them and to pay compensation as prayed for.
2. As OP No.1 was proceeded against ex parte, so, only OP No.2 filed reply, wherein, it was alleged that the complainants were informed one day before the cancellation of the flight. When complainants informed about this fact, matter was brought to notice of OP No.1 and Rs.7609/- were refunded. There was no deficiency in service on it's part and complaint be dismissed.
3. After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (in short 'District Forum') allowed complaint vide impugned order dated 23.02.2017 and directed as under:
"(a) To refund the full amount of the cancelled tickets of the complainants alongwith 9% interest from the date of deduction of amount of tickets till release of money.
(b) To pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of mental tension, agony, harassment suffered on account of deficiency in service and for the unfair trade practice of Opposite Party No.1 and 2.
(c) To pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses." 4. Feeling aggrieved therefrom, OP No.1 has preferred this appeal. 5. Arguments heard. File perused.
6. There is no cogent evidence on the file showing that OP No.1 entered into unfair trade practice. Mere apprehension is not ground to come to this conclusion, so, observation of learned District Forum to this effect cannot be sustained, keeping in view the opinion of Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed in Improvement Trust Vs. Shakti Coop. House Building Society Ltd. (2009) 12 SCC 369. However, there is deficiency in service as opined by learned District Forum because appellant/OP No.1 did not make alternative arrangement after the cancellation of the flight. So, learned District Forum rightly granted compensation as mentioned in impugned order. Resultantly, appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
7. The statutory amount of Rs.16847/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant No.1 against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.
Announced 06.03.2018 (Urvashi Agnihotri) Member, Addl. Bench (R.K. Bishnoi) Judicial Member, Addl. Bench D.R.