National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Spicejet Ltd. vs Himadri Sharma on 23 March, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1294 OF 2009 (Against the Order dated 10/02/2009 in Appeal No. 769/2007 of the State Commission Delhi) 1. SPICEJET LTD. ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. HIMADRI SHARMA D/o Cd. S.K. Sharma, R/o B-206, Kanak Durga House, Sec. 12, Plot No. 26 Delhi ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Maiban M. Singh, Proxy Counsel
For Mr. Amit Punj, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Manish Chauhan, Proxy Counsel
Dated : 23 Mar 2015 ORDER
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 10.02.2009 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. FA/2007/769 - SpiceJet Ltd. Vs. Himadri Sharma by which, while allowing appeal partly, order of District Forum allowing compensation was modified.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/respondent along with her parents was scheduled to fly back to Delhi from Kolkata by flight no. 616 of OP/SpeiceJet Airlines on 31.12.2006. The flight was scheduled to depart at 07.20 p.m. It was alleged that the flight was delayed without any reason and boarding passes were issued to the passengers only after 09.00 p.m. The flight took off from Kolkata airport without checking the weather conditions at Delhi airport. The flight was not allowed to land at Delhi and it was flown back to Kolkata. The complainant and her parents were left to fend for themselves. The OP airline refused to provide them minimum facilities for their comfort stay overnight. The father of the complainant, who is an officer in the Indian Navy, being a neuro patient needed comfortable sleep during the night and in the absence of any arrangements having been made by the OP airline the complainant and her parents underwent great mental and physical discomfort. It being New Year's eve the complainant found it very difficult to secure hotel accommodation. Her requests for providing lodging and boarding to her and to her parents were ignored by the OP airline. The complainant and her parents faced extreme physical discomfort during their overnight stay at Kolkata. They were flown to Delhi only on the next day. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP/petitioner, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and disclaimed its liability to compensate the complainant and pleaded that the flight had departed from Kolkata on scheduled time but on account of dense fog and bad weather the flight was not allowed to land at Delhi and had to be flown back to Kolkata and rescheduling of the flight for the next day was because of the circumstances which were beyond its control and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation. Appeal filed by OP was partly allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and compensation was reduced to Rs.30,000/- from Rs.50,000/- against which, this revision petition has been filed.
3. Heard learned proxy Counsels for the parties and perused record.
4. Learned proxy Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per terms and conditions of ticket, petitioner was not under obligation to provide any boarding and lodging facility on account of non-landing of flight due to bad weather, even then learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal partly; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that minimum courtesy of providing boarding and lodging was on petitioner and as petitioner failed to provide these facilities, order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.
5. Learned State Commission in paragraph 7 of impugned order rightly observed as under:
"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 amounts to deficiency in service"
but, learned State Commission has not quoted any agreement or law under which petitioner was required to provide boarding and lodging on account of non-landing of flight due to bad weather and returning back to Kolkata. In the ticket issued by petitioner to respondent, it has clearly been mentioned that -
Please note that SpiceJet does not provide any hotel accommodation due to the delay /diversion/cancellation of flights for reasons beyond its control including weather/poor visibility etc. On second page of this ticket terms and conditions runs as under -
"23. Where bad weather or instances beyond SpiceJet control has resulted in your flight being cancelled or delayed or diverted, Spicejet will not be liable in any way for the delay/cancellation/diversion.
24. Spicejet does not provide hotel accommodation/meals/transportation in case of delay/cancellation.
Perusal of terms and conditions of ticket clearly reveals that on account of delay, diversion, cancellation of flights for reasons beyond its control including weather or poor visible condition, petitioner was not liable to provide any boarding or lodging. The only deficiency attributed on the part of petitioner was regarding non-providing of boarding and lodging to the respondent's parents, who were old persons. When there are specific terms and conditions of the low fare airlines by which both the parties are bound, petitioner was not required to provide boarding and lodging facility on account of non-landing of flight in Delhi due to bad weather and I do not find any deficiency on the part of petitioner.
6. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that flight departed after 1½ hours of the scheduled time from Kolkata and on account of this, flight reached late at Delhi which was not allowed to land due to bad weather. Respondent has not placed any evidence on record to show the flight departed after 1½ hour from Kolkata. On the contrary reply of the notice dated 14.3.2007 clearly reveals that flight was to depart at 7.35 p.m. from Calcutta but finally it took off at 8.16 p.m. after getting necessary clearance from the Air Traffic Controllers and for this purpose, no deficiency can be attributed on the part of petitioner.
7. Learned District Forum without any cogent reason committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal partly and in such circumstances, revision petition is to be allowed.
8. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 10.2.2009 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. FA/2007/769 - SpiceJet Ltd. Vs. Himadri Sharma and order of District Forum dated 1.09.2007 passed in CC No. DF-VII/364/07 - Chairman/Managing Director, SpiceJet Airline Vs. Ms. Himadri Sharma is set aside and complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
......................J K.S. CHAUDHARI PRESIDING MEMBER