State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Suraj Tiwari Hyderabad vs M/S. Spice Jet Ltd. And 2 Others Haryana on 17 October, 2008
A A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD. F.A. 1117/2008 against C.D. 262/2008, Dist. Forum-III, Hyderabad Between: Suraj Tiwari S/o. B. Tiwari Age: 33 years, H.No. 10-1-166, Netaji Colony Fathenagar, Hyderabad. *** Appellant/ Complainant And 1. M/s. Spice Jet Ltd. Rep. by its General Manager 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV Gurugon-122 016 Haryana. 2. The Deputy Manager Spice Jet Ltd., Kolkatta Air Port Kolkatta. 3. The Deputy Manager Spice Jet Ltd., Shamshabad Airport (Internationa) Shamshabad, R.R. Dist. *** Respondent/ Opposite Party. Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. A. Krishna Rao Counsel for the Respondents: Admission Stage QUORUM: HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT & SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
FRIDAY, THIS THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND EIGHT Oral Order: (Per Honble Justice D. Appa Rao, President) ***** Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, and on perusing the record, we are of the opinion that the matter can be disposed of at the stage of admission itself.
This is an appeal preferred by the unsuccessful complainant against the order of the Dist. Forum-III, Hyderabad in dismissing his complaint.
The case of the complainant in brief is that he went to Kolkatta on 7.7.2007 and on completion of his work he intended to return to Hyderabad by flight No. SG 527 of respondents herein on 8.7.2007. The schedule departure was at 02.40 p.m. While so, as there was heavy rain, he reached the airport at 2.10 p.m. with a late of five minutes. He requested the respondents staff to allow him to board the flight, however, they denied the boarding pass. The staff of the respondents un-necessarily picked up quarrel till 2.20 p.m. In spite of his request they did not accede and finally endorsed on the ticket Reached reporting at 2.20 p.m. Though he reached in time, the respondents did not allow him board the flight and therefore he issued legal notice and sought for refund of Rs. 3,174/-
together with compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and costs.
The respondents filed counter and resisted the case. While admitting that the appellant had booked a ticket in their flight scheduled to depart at 2.40 p.m. on 8.7.2007 but he reported at the check in counter at 2.20 p.m. He had to check in for the flight at least 30 minutes before the departure, and failure to do so will result in forfeiture of the fare as per the terms of the carriage. There was no dispute with their staff. All this was created only to show that he was not at fault. In fact, the last call for issuing boarding pass was made at 2.11 p.m., evidenced from the record. There was no deficiency in service on their part, and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and Exs. A1 to A8. The respondents filed Ex. B1 copy of the passenger check in and Ex. B2 certified copy of resolution.
The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the complainant was at fault in not reporting 30 minutes prior to the departure, and refusal of the respondents in issuing boarding pass was justified. There was no deficiency in service whatsoever on the part of respondents, and therefore the complaint was dismissed, however, without costs.
Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred this appeal contending that the respondents did not give any reply to the legal notice issued, despite the fact that the same was received under Ex. A7 and Ex. A8 acknowledgements. Necessarily an adverse inference has to be drawn for not issuing the reply. The averments made in the notice were not controverted. The Dist. Forum ought to have seen that the opposite parties wantonly denied gate pass in order to prevent him from travelling in the said flight evidenced from Ex. A3 to A8. Therefore he prayed that the appeal be allowed.
It is not in dispute that the complainant had booked a ticket Ex. A2 for flight No. SG-527 of respondents scheduled to depart from Kolkatta to Hyderabad at 2.40 p.m. on 8.7.2007. The complainant alleges that due to heavy rain, he reported at 2.10 p.m. with a late of five minutes. When he requested the staff of the respondents to issue boarding pass they picked up a quarrel and therefore could not report in time. Evidently, he reported at 2.20 p.m. evidenced under the endorsement made on the ticket. The fact that there was a quarrel between him and the staff of the respondents is not evidenced by any document. He could have reported the same to the airport authorities within check in time.
It is not in dispute that one of the terms and conditions noted on Ex. A2 is that Failure to show up for the flight at least 30 minutes prior to the scheduled departure will result in the fare being forfeited. Since the complainant had reported at the check in counter at 2.20 p.m. evidenced under the endorsement, he was rightly denied boarding pass. We reiterate that there was no evidence that he reached the airport at 2.10 p.m. Ex. B1 shows that last call was made at 2.11 p.m. even by then the complainant did not report. Having come late, he cannot turn round and complain that in view of the conduct of the respondents staff he could not report at the check in counter at 2.10 p.m. We reiterate that there was no evidence to show that he reported at 2.10 p.m. Considering his own version of the fact that he cannot turn round and complain that an adverse inference has to be drawn for not issuing reply to the notice issued by him. Absolutely, there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents. We do not see any merits in the appeal.
In the result the appeal is dismissed, however, in the circumstances of the case without costs.
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER Dt.
17.10.2008