State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Narinder Kumar Arora vs Go Airlines (India) Pvt. Ltd. on 1 July, 2008
IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under section 9 clause (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.) Date of decision :01.07.2008 Appeal No. FA-08/375 (Arising from order dated 26.02.2008 passed by the District Forum-VII, Sheikh Sarai-II, New Delhi in Compliant case No. C-/254/07) Narinder Kumar Arora, S/o P-90B, South Extention II, New Delhi -110001 ..Appellant Through Sh. Kamal Bansal, Advocate Versus Go Airlines (India) Pvt. Ltd. Through its Managing Director Having its registered office at : Paperbox House, Off Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093 ..Respondent CORAM Justice J.D. Kapoor President Ms. Rumnita Mittal Member1
Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the Judgement.
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not.
Justice J.D. Kapoor (Oral)
1. Vide impugned order dated 26th February, 2008 passed by the District Forum the complaint of the appellant seeking compensation of Rs. 5 lacs for preponing the flight by two hours whereby he could not attend the ceremony and had to spend extra expenses by taking another flight was dismissed.
2. Feeling aggrieved the appellant preferred this appeal.
3. We have perused the impugned order closely and find that the District Forum has returned the finding of fact that no material was placed on record that the appellant had suffered any loss on account of preponment of the flight and further that there was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the respondent-Airlines as the respondent-airlines had admittedly informed the appellant much in advance i.e. three days before with the regard to the preponment of the flight by two hours. Counsel for the appellant contends that he had incurred expenses of Rs. 1125/- for catching another flight.
4. We do not find any infirmity in the finding of fact returned by the District Forum so far as deficiency in service and alleged negligence on the part of the respondent-Airlines is concerned. The appellant was informed well in advance about the preponment by two hours and, therefore, he should have made other arrangement or should have taken the same flight as preponed by the respondent.
5. We do not find any merit in the appeal. However respondent-Airlines may show gesture towards the consumer for refund of Rs. 1850/- taken as price of the ticket which the appellant did not utilize.
6. F.D.R./ Bank Guarantee, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith after completion of due formalities.
7. A copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Announced on the Ist July, 2008.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member rk