State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. Raminder Bir Singh vs Jet Airways on 8 April, 2015
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. : 80 of 2015 Date of Institution : 06.04.2015 Date of Decision : 08.04.2015 Dr. Raminder Bir Singh, 742, Phase 3B1, Mohali. ......Appellant/Complainant V e r s u s Jet Airways India Limited, Siroya Centre, Andheri East, Mumbai-400099. ....Respondent/Opposite Party Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER Argued by:Mrs. Navjot Kaur, wife and authorized representative of Dr. Raminder Bir Singh, appellant.
Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the respondent.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.01.2015, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it dismissed the Consumer Complaint bearing No.670 of 2014, in default of appearance of the complainant (now appellant).
The facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased air tickets, from the Opposite Party, in order to travel from London-Delhi-Chandigarh for 31.01.2014 and back for 10.02.2014, for which he paid a sum of Rs.52,000/-, towards fare. It was stated that the complainant boarded the flight of the Opposite Party from London on 31.01.2014 and reached Delhi on 01.02.2014. However, to the utter surprise of the complainant, the next flight from Delhi to Chandigarh was cancelled by the Opposite Party, but no information, in that regard, was given to him. Even no arrangements were made by the Opposite Party, for the passengers, including the complainant, at Delhi Airport. It was further stated that similarly on 10.02.2014, the flight from Chandigarh to Delhi of the Opposite Party was cancelled, as a result whereof, the complainant had to reach Delhi, on his own. It was further stated that, thereafter the complainant approached the Opposite Party to refund the amount received by it, towards fare from Delhi to Chandigarh and Chandigarh to Delhi. It was further stated that, to the utter surprise of the complainant, the Opposite Party refunded GBP 11.80 out of GBP 520 paid by him. It was further stated that the complainant approached the Opposite Party, through every possible means, with a request to pay the remaining amount aforesaid, as also compensation, but to no avail.
It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, seeking directions to the Opposite Party to refund the remaining amount, aforesaid; and pay compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.
On 30.01.2015, the complaint was called many times, but none entered appearance, on behalf of the complainant, as a result whereof, the same was dismissed in default of his appearance.
Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the appellant/complainant.
We have heard Mrs. Navjot Kaur, wife and authorized representative of Dr. Raminder Bir Singh, appellant, Counsel for the respondent, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully.
Mrs. Navjot Kaur, wife and authorized representative of Dr. Raminder Bir Singh, appellant, submitted that, no doubt, on 30.01.2015, none put in appearance, on behalf of the complainant/appellant, as a result whereof, the consumer complaint was dismissed in default of his (appellant/complainant) appearance. She further submitted that, on receipt of notice of the consumer complaint, inadvertently, the appellant/complainant, requested his friend Mr.D.P. Ojha, to appear on his behalf, in the District Forum, on 12.03.2015, instead of 30.01.2015. She further submitted that, it was only on receipt of certified copy of the order impugned, by the appellant/complainant, through post, on 05.02.2015, that he came to know that the complaint had already been dismissed, in default, vide order dated 30.01.2015. He further submitted that, on account of the reasons, aforesaid, none could appear in the District Forum, on 30.01.2015, when the complaint was called. He further submitted that the absence of the complainant, in the District Forum, on 30.01.2015, was neither intentional, nor deliberate, but for the reasons, referred to above. He further submitted that, in case, the order impugned is not set aside, irreparable injury is likely to occasion, to the appellant/complainant, as in that event, he would be condemned unheard. He further submitted that, thus, the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside.
On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent/Opposite Party, submitted that, no doubt, the absence of the complainant (now appellant), on 30.01.2015, in the District Forum, was intentional and deliberate, yet, in the interest of justice, he had no objection, if the impugned order is set aside, subject of payment of costs.
After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by Mrs. Navjot Kaur, wife and authorized representative of Dr. Raminder Bir Singh, appellant, the Counsel for the respondent and, on going through the record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal deserves to be accepted, and the case is liable to be remanded back, for fresh decision, on merits, in accordance with law, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. It may be stated here, that perusal of the District Forum record, reveals that the complaint had been received by post, by it, on 22.12.2014, without detailed affidavit, file covers and index. As such, the District Forum, vide order dated 24.12.2014, issued notice to the complainant, through registered post, for doing the needful, for 30.01.2015. As stated above, on 30.01.2015, the complaint was called many times, but none entered appearance, on behalf of the complainant, despite deemed service, as a result whereof, the same was dismissed in default of his appearance. In our considered opinion, the complaint was, thus, at the initial stage. Even, notice to the Opposite Party had not been ordered to be issued, by the District Forum. Therefore, the District Forum could adjourn the complaint, to a short date, for removing the deficiencies, referred to above, in the paper book, but it hastily dismissed the same, on account of default of appearance of the complainant. It is settled principle of law, that every lis should normally be decided, on merits, than by resorting to the hyper- technicalities. When the hyper-technicalities, and the substantial justice, are pitted against each other, then the latter shall prevail over the former. The procedure, is, in the ultimate, the handmaid of justice, meant to advance the cause thereof, than to thwart the same.
No doubt, there was negligence, on the part of the appellant/complainant, as he did not note down the correct date i.e. 30.01.2015, mentioned in the notice, but, on the other hand, requested his friend to appear on 12.03.2015, in the District Forum, as a result whereof, none put in appearance on the said date (30.01.2015), resulting into dismissal of complaint. Whatever the case may be, in the interest of justice, in our considered opinion, an opportunity should be afforded to the complainant, to prosecute the complaint, so that the same could be decided, on merits, and the rights of the Parties are finally determined by one Forum, one way or the other. In this view of the matter, the order impugned is liable to be set aside.
On account of the negligence of the complainant/appellant, delay in the disposal of complaint, on merits, will certainly be caused. According to Section 13 (3A) of the Act, endeavour should be made to decide the complaint, within three months, from the date of service of the Opposite Party(s), except the one, in which the goods are required to be sent to the Laboratory for examination. In that event, endeavour should be made to decide the complaint, within a period of 5 months, from the date of service of the Opposite Party(s). The complaint had been received by the District Forum, through post, on 22.12.2014 and was taken up on 24.12.2014. Since the complaint is being remanded back to the District Forum, delay will certainly be caused, in the disposal of the same (complaint), on merits. Thus, the appellant/complainant is required to be burdened with costs.
For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted. The order impugned is set aside. The complaint is remanded back to the District Forum, with a direction to restore the same, to its original number, proceed further, from the stage, at which, it was dismissed in default of appearance of the complainant, and decide the same, afresh, on merits, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. However, the appellant/complainant is burdened with costs of Rs.500/- for causing delay, in the disposal of complaint, afresh, on merits. The payment of costs to the respondent/Opposite Party, shall be a condition precedent.
The Parties are directed to appear before District Forum (II) on 20.04.2015, at 10.30 A.M., for further proceedings.
The District Forum record, alongwith a certified copy of the order, be sent back immediately, so as to reach there, well before the date and time fixed i.e. 20.04.2015, at 10.30 A.M. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
The file be consigned to the Record Room, after due completion.
Pronounced.
08.04.2015 Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER Sd/-
(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER Rg