State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jet Airways vs Sri Pankaj Pal on 24 June, 2016
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/296/2015 (Arisen out of Order Dated 21/01/2015 in Case No. CC/453/2012 of District Kolkata-I(North)) 1. Jet Airways 18D, Park Street, Stephen Court, P.S. Park Street, Kolkata - 700 071. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Sri Pankaj Pal Flat no.2C, 65, Baghajatin Station Road, East E Block, P.S. Jadavpur, Kolkata - 700 086. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. JAGANNATH BAG MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. Tarun Chakraborty Mr. Anjan Dutta (I), Advocate For the Respondent: ORDER Dt. 24.6.2016 MR. J. BAG, LD.MEMBER
The present appeal is directed against the Order , dated 21.01.15, passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -1, Kolkata , in CDF / Unit -I / Case No. 483 / 2012 , whereby the complaint was allowed on contest with cost, compensation and other relief .
The complaint case, in brief, was as follows:
The Complainant purchased seven Air Tickets in Jet Airways Flight for their air travel on 08.10.10 from Chennai to Portblair . The Complainant and other members of his family reached the Chennai Airport more than 50 minutes prior to the scheduled departure time at 10.00 hours. As they requested the counter staff of Jet Airways to issue boarding passes and to provide wheel chair assistance , the representative of the Jet Airways present at the counter refused to issue the boarding passes, though the Complainant and other family members had tele-checked in and they had their seat numbers . The counter staff, namely, Miss Mary forced the Complainant to cancel the tickets . They again purchased tickets at a higher rate for the next date from Air India (IC549) . The Complainant requested Jet Airways for making arrangement of hotel accommodation since they were not allowed to board the flight, but to no effect. The Complainant tried to intimate the Jet Airways through several mails dated 22.10.10 , 24.11.10, 10.01.11 and 05.09.11 but none of them was acknowledged. In reply to their e-mail dated 26.09.12 , the OP stated that the Complainants were a 'No Show' on 08.10.10 which was allegedly a mis-statement . In the said circumstances a complaint was filed before the Ld. Forum below with prayer for direction upon the OP for return of Rs. 1,93,033/- ( Purchase price of Air India Tickets) with interest @ 18 % p.a. apart from payment of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for deficiency in service, harassment and mental agony and also cost of Rs. 5,000/-.
The complaint was contested by the OP who filed their W.V. In their W.V. it was stated, inter alia, that the Complainant did not collect their boarding passes by reporting to the counter at least 50 minutes prior to the counter closure time. It was further stated that if the concerned passenger does not turn up 50 minutes prior to departure time, the seat reserved by him is given to another guest checking in for their flight. The Complainant along with his family, did not appear 50 minutes prior to flight departure. Again, there was no question of providing wheel chair for Complainant's mother . The Complainant was not forced to cancel his tickets. The e-mails of the Complainant dated 22.10.2010 , 24.11.2010 , 10.01.2010 and 05.09.2011 were not received by the guest relations department and as such they were not replied to by them. The e-mail of the Complainant dated 26.09.2012 was duly responded . It was also stated by the OP that 5 passengers booked vide 'DBXKDW' were 'No Show' passengers. The complaint was without any proof and therefore liable to be dismissed.
Ld. Forum below observed that OP did not enclose the rules for tele-check in. In the event of 'No Show' as per rules no refund was permissible but the actual refund of money by OP established the admission of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice . As per Regulations, refundable tickets can be cancelled only when it is cancelled one hour prior to flight departure time. So, OP allowed refund of money to the Complainant because he along with his family members reached in time and in spite of tele-checking the seat numbers were not allotted to them. It was also observed that OP did not file any document which supports that the cancellation charge of Rs. 4,760/- was due to 'No Show' status of the passengers. Further, in spite of several complaints to the OP, reply was not sent except an e-mail reply dated 01.10.12 which shows the OP was negligent in handling the complaint . Accordingly, the complaint was allowed by the Ld. Forum below with direction upon the OP to pay the Complainant a sum of Rs. 4,760/- towards cancellation charge apart from compensation of Rs. 40,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the Ld. Forum below , the OP-turned-Appellant has come up before this Commission praying for direction to set aside the impugned order.
The memorandum of appeal has been filed together with copies of the impugned order , the petition of complaint , the reply dated 01.10.12 sent by the OP/Appellant in response to the e-mail dated 26.09.12 of the Respondent /Complainant and other e-mail massages and documents including the copies of tickets purchased from the OP Airways and also the Air India Airways, apart from the W.V. filed by the OP before the Ld. Forum below.
Ld. Advocate appearing for the Appellant submitted that the complaint was not filed within the period of limitation i.e., 2 years from the date of cause of action. While the purported cause of action arose on 08.10.10 , the case was filed on 12.10.2012 and no prayer for condonation of delay in filing the complaint was made. Further, the cause of action arose at the Chennai Airport which was beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum below. It was further argued that the Respondent / Complainant took refund of Rs. 22, 112/- from the OP without any objection and as the settled principle of law is that privity of contract or relationship of consumer and service provider comes to an end at the moment , the consumer accepts money without protest. Again, it was argued that the Complainant and his family members arrived at the counter after its closure and no cogent document could be produced before the Ld. Forum below that they arrived the counter prior to scheduled hours. In support of his argument Ld. Advocate relied upon the order of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as reported in 2015 (1) CPR 62 (NC) emphasizing that the relationship of the Complainant with the OP Airways ended as soon as he accepted the money towards refund against cancellation of tickets.
Ld. Advocate appearing for the Respondent / Complainant submitted that the OP neglected to give any reply to their e-mails dated 22.10.2010 which was sent just after the date of incident and also other mails dated 24.11.10 ,10.01.11 and 05.09.2011 . The cause of action arose immediately after 08.10.2010 but the same continued as the Appellant/OP failed and neglected to send any reply to the grievance of the Complainant/Respondent which was an act of deficiency. It was only on 1st October ,2012 that the OP Airways/Appellant herein replied to their correspondence dated 26.09.12. Accordingly, the cause of action arose on 1st October 2012 and hence, there was no question of limitation. Jet Airways i.e., the OP having their operation / office at Kolkata, the matter of territorial jurisdiction is not hit. The matter was duly considered by the Ld. Forum below and order was passed keeping in view the merit of the complaint. There is no question of setting aside the impugned order passed by the Ld. Forum below.
Decision with Reasons :
The question is whether the impugned order suffers from any material irregularity or legal infirmity.
There is no dispute that the Complainant/Respondent purchased seven tickets in Jet Airways Flight for their journey from Chennai to Port Blair. They had tele-cheked their Air Tickets and reported to the counter of the concerned Airways on the date of journey i.e., 08.10.10 at Chennai Airport. As they were denied boarding passes in spite of their tickets being tele-checked, the Complainant was compelled by the counter staff to cancel the tickets and take refund of the money as offered by the counter staff. That the Respondent/Complainant purchased further seven tickets at a much higher rate for the next date i.e., 09.10.10 from Air India (IC549) corroborates the fact that they were in urgent need of travelling as no better option was available.
It is important to note that the OP/Appellant did not respond to the e-mails dated 22.10.2010 , 24.20.2010 , 10.01.2011 and 05.09.2011. In their reply to the email of the Respondent/Complainant dated 26.09.2012 it was mentioned that the Complainant together with other members of his family were five guests instead of seven guests which was not a fact at all. The reply was sent in a very casual manner, as in their W.V. the OP/Appellant admitted that the Complainant and his family members were seven in all and all such seven members were "no show" passengers. Ld. Forum below in this connection has rightly observed that in the event of 'No Show' as per rules , no refund was permissible but the refund of money by the OP/Appellant establishes the fact that the Complainant and the family members were given the refund value of tickets as tickets were cancelled. As per Regulations refundable tickets can be cancelled for money back only when it is cancelled one hour prior to flight departure time. This position gives reason to hold that the Complainant and his fellow passengers reported at least 50 minutes prior to departure hours, but they were denied boarding passes and harassed by negligent way of dealing with the customers who were subjected to severe mental agony and financial loss . This was a clear act of deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant.Ld. Forum below appears to have adjudicated the matter in a reasoned manner. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, Ordered That the appeal be and the same is dismissed on contest . The impugned order is confirmed. The Appellant shall pay the decretal amount within a period of 40 days from the date of this order , failing which penal interest @10% p.a on the decretal amount shall be payable to the Respondent / Complainant from the date of this order till full realization. There shall be no separate order as to cost. [HON'BLE MR. DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. JAGANNATH BAG] MEMBER