State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kingfisher Airlines Ltd vs Arun Gupta on 14 July, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA. First Appeal No. 964 of 2010 Date of Institution: 5.7.2010 Date of Decision: 14.07.2010 Kingfisher Airlines Ltd, UB Anchorage, Rich Mond Road, Banglore-50025 and also at Kingfisher House, Western Express Highway, Vile Parle (E) Mumbai through its authorized signatory. Appellant/ OP. VERSUS 1 Arun Gupta son of Sh. Sat Parkash Gupta resident of H. No.482, Sector-5, Urban Estate Kurukshetra Distt. Kurukshtra. Complainant-respondent. 2 Global Path Ways Yahoocoin, 6th Patshahi Kurukshetra through its Manager/incharge. Respondent No.1. BEFORE:- Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Sh. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.
Present:- Mr.D.K. Singal, Advocate for the appellant.
O R D E R:
JUSTICE R.S.MADAN, PRESIDENT:
This appeal is preferred against the order dated 13.11.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra whereby the complaint filed by the appellant-complainant was accepted by granting the following relief:-
Thus, we accept this complaint and direct the OP No.1 to pay Rs.50,000/- to complainant as compensation with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 14.12.2007 till its realization for the mental agony, pain and suffering, discomfort to his visit. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of announcement of the order failing which penal action u/s 27 will be taken.
Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the appellant-opposite parties has come up in appeal.
There is delay of 204 days in filing of the present appeal and the condonation of which has been sought by the appellant by moving an application along with the appeal.
Heard.
It is well settled principle of law that the delay cannot be condoned on the ground of equity and generosity and the delay has to be condoned if the appellant shows Sufficient Cause. In the present case the appellant has taken the plea that he was under the impression that the limitation for filing of the appeal is 90 days. In our view this is not a sufficient cause to condone the delay because ignorance of law is no excuse for seeking condonation of delay.
A period of 30 days has been provided for filing an appeal against the order of the District Forum. The proviso therein permits the State Commission to entertain an appeal after the expiry of the period of 30 days if it is satisfied that there is sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period. The expression of sufficient cause has not been defined in the Act rightly so, because it would vary from facts and circumstances of each case.
The Honble Supreme Court in case Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 Supreme Court 1221 has held as under:-
Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of case-law has grown around S.5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his rights must explain every days delay.
The facts of the present case are fully applicable to the case law cited above.
Under the facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not find it a fit case to condone the delay. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is rejected.
Even on merits there is no force in this appeal. The claim of the complainant-respondent before the District Forum was that he has got booked three air tickets of opposite party No.1 from its authorized ticket counter at Global Path Ways Yahoocoin, 6th Patshahi Kurukshetra (opposite party No.2) for Bombay to Nagpur for dated 08.11.2007. It is further case of the complainant that on 6th November 2007, the complainant along with his family reached Bombay.
However, he has received a mobile call from the opposite party No.1 vide which he was informed that flight in question was cancelled due to some operational reason, which action of the opposite parties harassed the complainant. The District Consumer Form while disposing of the complaint has relied upon the case law Royal Nepal Airlines Vs. Vishal Arya & Anr. 2007(1) CPC page 148, wherein it has been held that even after the information with respect to the cancellation of flight the appellants cannot escape from its liability for deficiency in service on the ground of vicarious liability. Taking strength of the above said case law cited (supra) the District Consumer Forum has allowed the complaint and granted the relief as noticed above.
Having gone through the facts and circumstances of the case as well as impugned order of the District Consumer Forum, we are of the considered view that in the instant case, the deficiency of service is proved on record on the part of the appellant-opposite parties, because of the admitted fact that flight of the complainant was cancelled and he has to undergo great inconvenience along with his family members. The appellant-opposite parties cannot escape from their liabilities merely on the ground that the officials of the appellant has informed the complainant about the cancellation of the flight in question, as this cancellation has resulted into great inconvenience and harassment to the complainant. The case law relied upon by the District Consumer Forum fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.
Finding no merit in this appeal, it is dismissed both on the grounds of limitation as well as on merit.
14th July 2010. Justice R.S. Madan, President.
Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.
Kr.