State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sahara Airlines Ltd. vs Santosh Sethi on 22 February, 2013
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision : 22.2.2013 First Appeal 911/2009 (Arising out of the order dated 4.8.2009 passed by the District Forum( New Delhi), M Block, Vikas Bhawan, IP Estate, New Delhi in complaint case No. 776/2006) Sahara Airlines Ltd. (now known as JetLite( India) Ltd., Jetair House, 13, Community Centre, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi-110 048 (Earlier at A-110, Street No.5, Mahipalpur Extension, National Highway No.8, New Delhi-37 .........Appellant VS 1.
2.
3.
4.
5. Shri Santosh Sethi Mrs. Rajni Rani Ms Surbhi Sethi Ms. Stuti Sethi All R/o A-4, National Institute Of Technolocy, Aruna Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110 067 Jet Airways Ltd., N-40, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110 001 ....Respondents CORAM V.K.Gupta, Member(Judicial) S.A. Siddiqui, Member(Judicial)
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
V.K.GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)
1. This appeal by the OP No.1 of the complaint case No.776 of 2006 is directed against the order dated 4.8.2009 of District Forum-VI, M Block, Vikas Bhawan, IP Estate, New Delhi directing the OP No.1 to reimburse Rs.15556/-, Rs.30,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment and also Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.
2. Briefly stated factual scenario of the case is that Shri Santosh Kumar Sethi, Complainant No.1 booked four tickets for himself and his family members on 3rd January, 2006 for proceeding to London on 31st May, 2006 and paid Rs.70,768/-. Due to final examination of his daughter, the complainant No.3, and other important meetings of his wife, the complainant No.2, complainant No.1 was compelled to make changes in the departure from 31st May to 7th of June, 2006 and paid Rs.11,000/- as extra, however there was no changes made in the departure of the complainant and his daughter Shruti (complainant No.4) which was scheduled on 31st May, 2006. The complainant No.1 and his daughter Shruti was supposed to leave Delhi by Sahara Airlines, Appellant/OP No.1, but a day before the departure i.e. 30th May, 2006, the complainant No.1 was informed that the flight to London would leave next day at 2.45 p.m. and also that instead of Sahara Airlines, the flight of Jet Airways would leave for London. The complainant has no choice, but to take, along with her daughter by the Jet Airways, the OP No.2 fly at 2.45 a.m. on the next day i.e. June,1, 2006. After reaching London, the complainant was supposed to take the train to North Wales, his ultimate destination for which the complainant purchased he tickets in advance and non refundable. As a result that tickets worth Rs.4576/- were got wasted and the complainant has to take the regular train by paying full fare of Rs.5280/- each. The Complainants wife Rajini and daughter Surbhi took flight to London on 6th June, 2006 mid night at 12.55 a.m. instead of 7th June, 2006 at 12.30 p.m. as the flight was preponed and therefore, his wife and daughter suffered inconvenience. For the return journey, complainant along with his family members were confirmed on flight leaving London on July, 1, 2006 at 9.30 p.m. At the London Airport, the flight was supposed to take along with his family members was re-scheduled for July 2, 2006 at 9.40 a.m. The complainant requested the OP to make the necessary arrangement for lodging and boarding as per the normal practice of the flight, as it was rescheduled from 1st July, 1006 at 9.30 p.m. to 2nd July, 2006 at 9.40 p.m. The request of the complainant was not considered and no arrangement was made, therefore, the complainant and his family members made their own arrangement for stay in hotel nearby to airport and paid Rs.10,190.82 for boarding and lodging facilities. The complainant suffered inconvenience and great hardship, therefore, claimed Rs.10,190/- for the hotel charges, Rs.4576/- expenses incurred on train tickets, and Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and inconvenience and Rs.11,000/- towards the cost.
3. The appellant/OP No.1 has filed the written statement and denied the entire allegations. The passenger has to travel as per the terms and conditions. The condition printed on the jacket of the ticket which is the statutory requirement of Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 3 of the second scheduled of Carriage By Air Act, 1972, is :
the passenger ticket shall constitute prima-facie of the conclusion and condition of the contract of the carriage. The absence, irregularity or loss of the passenger ticket does not affect the existence or the validity of t he contract of carriage which shall none the less, be subject to these rules.
The present complainant is not maintainable with the statutory provisions as contained in Clause (C) of Sub-section 1 of Section 12 of The Consumer protection Act, 1986 has not been followed. That there was an Interline Agreement between jet Airways, the OP No.2 and Sahara Alines Ltd., Appellant/OP No.1 on 31st Jan., 2006, which was effected from 1st Feb., 2006 in which it was mutually agreed that they will carry the passengers of each other as and when needed to suit their convenience. In view of the said agreement dated 21st Jan., 2006, Jet Airways, OP No.2 was responsible to take the complainant and his family to the desired destination and it was the entire obligation on the part of the Jet Airways to provide the complainant and his family members all the facilities available to the passengers.
As such, if there is any deficiency, it was caused by Jet Airways, OP No.2, which is solely responsible and answerable. It has been widely publicized in the Media that Jet Airways has entered into an agreement for the purchase of Sahara Airlines Limited in the second seek of Jan., 2006 and in the first week of April, 2006, Jet Airways, OP No.2, further entered into an agreement whereby the officials of jet Airways were exercising their powers to schedule and reschedule the flights of various destinations including London. They further took charge of the Aircraft which was flying between Delhi-London-Delhi sector and replaced Sahara Airlines aircraft/flight with one of their own aircraft, consequently the entire flight of the Sahara Airlines got affected.
Therefore, the appellant/OP No.1 is not responsible for any deficiency, if any, to the respondent.
4. Jet Airways, OP No.2 has also filed the written statement denied the entire allegations. It contended that Jet Airways is not a necessary or proper party in as much as the only dispute is between the complainant and the Sahara Airlines. Further Sahara Airlines and Jet Airways are two different and distinct entities., therefore, Jet Airways cannot be held liable for any action or deficiency on the part of the appellant/OP No.1 During May-June, 2006, it is admitted that Sahara Airlines has entered into a specific understanding with the Jet Airways that if for a commercial/operation reason Sahara Airlines flight got cancelled, Jet Airways would accommodate the passengers booked on the flight of Sahara Airlines. Jet Airwayss involvement is with regard to the arrangement to the extent of accommodating the concerned passengers as required by Sahara Airlines.
5. The District Forum vide order dated 4.8.2009 has directed the appellant/OP No.1 to reimburse Rs.15556/-, Rs.30,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment and also Rs.10,000/- to the complainant/respondent No.1-4..
6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 4.8.2009, the Sahara Airlines, OP No.1, has preferred the appeal.
7. We have heard Shri Sanjay Pal, Counsel for the Appellant and respondent No.1 in person and for respondent No.2,3 & 4 and none appeared for respondent No.5
8. In this case some of the facts are admitted to both the parties. It is admitted that the complainant along with his family members (four in number) booked four tickets on 3rd Jan., 2006 for going to London from Sahara Airlines, the appellant and paid Rs.70,768/-.
Initially travel was to be made on 31st May, 2006, but the complainants wife and daughter on account of the personal compelling reasons, has to change the programme from 31st May to 7th June, 2006. it is also admitted by both the parties that return journey was to be made on 1st July, 2006 at 9.30 p.m. for which the tickets were issued by the appellant in favour of the complainant and three family members.
9. The only controversy before us is that while on the return journey, the complainant and his family members reached London Airport much before time in order to board to flight on 1st June, 2006 at 9.30 p.m., but at the last moment it was informed by the Jet Airways that the flight is to start on 2nd July, 2006 at 9.40 a.m. According to the allegation of the complainant, he asked officials of Jet Airways Flight to make arrangement for his stay in hotel, as there is a re-schedule of the flight, but no arrangement has been made by the Jet Airways and the complainant has to make his own arrangement for boarding and lodging in the hotel and incurred an expenditure of Rs.10,190.82. The argument advanced by the Counsel for the appellant is that the complainant never traveled in the Sahara Airlines, and if there is any deficiency, it is on the part of the Jet Airways, which has not made any arrangement, if any, on the request of the complainant for boarding and lodging at London Airport. Our attention has been invited to the agreement dated 31st Jan., 2006, between the jet Airways and the Sahara Airliens, by which Sahara Airlines has been taken over by the Jet Airways, and consequently an Interline Agreement between jet Airways, the OP No.2 and Sahara Alines Ltd., Appellant/OP No.1 was also executed on 31st Jan., 2006 by which the passengers of the Sahara Airlines shall be taken by the Jet Airways. This agreement was executed on 31st Jan., 2006. the travel was made by the complainant on 2nd July, 2006, obviously, after execution of this agreement on 31st Jan., 2006, Sahara Airlines was not in existence and all the operational work is to be carried out by the Jet Airways, which has taken the entire responsibility of Sahara Airlines. The District Forum has committed grave error in fastening the responsibility of the deficiency, if any, on Sahara Airlines i.e. the appellant.
10. Needless to mention that the registered notice was issued to the jet Airways, the respondent No.5 on 18.8.2011, but none appeared on behalf of respondent No.5 nor any counsel appeared on his behalf.
11. The material on record clearly goes to show that while returning from London, the Jet Airways flight was rescheduled from 1st July, 2006 at 9.30 p.m. to 2nd July, 2006 at 9.40 p.m. It is a matter of common observation that when the flight is rescheduled at the discretion of the Airways, it is incumbent on the part of the such airways to make boarding and lodging arrangement of the passengers. In the case in hand, the complainant and his family has to pass the whole night, for which the arrangement should be made by the Jet Airways, respondent No.5, by which the complainant and his family members has to travel, but it was not done, and the complainant/respondent No.1-4 has made own arrangement for boarding and lodging. In this respect the respondent No.1-4/complainant has filed the receipt of the payment of Rs.10,190.82 made to the Crown Plaza Hotel, where the complainant and his family stayed, therefore, the complainant is entitled to reimburse his amount from Jet Airways.
12. The District Forum has also awarded Rs.4576/-, being the amount spend for rail ticket from London to North Wails. On account of the change of flight from Delhi to London, the complainant/respondent No.1-4 could not board this train and an amount of Rs.4576/- went waste. This is on account of sheer deficiency on account of Jet Airways, to which the respondent No.1-4/complainant is traveling. In the complainant, the complainant/respondent No.1-4 have claimed Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and sheer suffering as per clause `C of para No.12 of the complaint, but it is very strange that the District Forum has awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/-, obviously, without any reason, the compensation, which was not asked by the complainant, was enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. It is a matter of general observation that a complainant is not entitled to claim more then the compensation for which he has suffered a loss. In this case, the complainant could be reimbursed Rs.15,576/-, therefore, the complainants/respondent No.1-4 are not entitled to more then this compensation, therefore, the complainants/respondent No.1-2 are not entitled to more then this compensation, therefore, we reduce the amount of compensation to Rs.15,000/-.
13. The District Forum has also awarded Rs.10,000/- by stating as:-
3. OP-1 will pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for what this amount has been awarded to the complainant, no mention is made by the District Forum nor any reason has been given, and we are compelled to state that in a very arbitrarily and whimsical manner this amount of Rs.10,000/- is awarded in favour of the complainant.
14. Under these circumstances, the appeal is partly allowed and the order dated 4.8.2009 is hereby modified to the extent that the complainants/respondent No.1-4 are entitled to the reimbursement of Rs.15,576/- from the Jet Airways, Respondent No.5/OP No.2 and also Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment from Jet airways, Respondent No.5/OP-2.
15. It is made clear that no payment shall be made by the appellant/OP No.1 (V.K.Gupta) Member (Judicial) (S.A.Siddiqui) Member (Judicial)