State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Spiceject Ltd. vs Rajendra Kr. Gupta on 5 August, 2016
Daily Order IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision:05.08.2016 First Appeal No. 741/2012 (Arising out of the order dated 12.07.2012 passed in Complaint Case No. 138/2008 by the District Consumer Redressal Forum VII, Local Shopping Complex, Sheikh Sarai , New Delhi-110017) In the matter of: M/s Spice Jet Ltd. 319, UdyogVihar Phase-IV, Gurgaon Haryana .............Appellant Versus Sh. Rajendra Kumar Gupta R/o K-1/52, Second Floor C.R.Park (EPDP) New Delhi-110019 .........Respondent CORAM N P Kaushik - Member (Judicial) 1.
Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial) Judgment
Present appeal is directed against the orders dated 12.07.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum Sheikh SaraiNew Delhi. Vide impugned orders Ld. District Forum VII passed the following directions against the appellant to pay to the respondent:
"a. Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) towards the compensation for harassment and mental agony.
b. Rs. 26,556/- (Rupees Twenty Six Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Six Only) towards the hotel expenses.
c. Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) towards misc. expenses incurred by the complainant."
Facts in brief are that the complainant Sh. Rajendra Kumar Gupta arranged a non-professional religious pilgrimage trip to Vaishno Devi on 24.11.2007 for himself, his family members and friends. In all, air tickets for 19 members for a price of Rs. 1,24,990/- were purchased from M/s Spice Jet Airways Ltd. (in short the OP). The flight was scheduled for 7:50 am on 24.11.2007. Return tickets for 25.11.2007 were also purchased. After reporting for check-in, complainants party came to know that the flight was rescheduled for 8:40 hrs. The flight however took off only at 10:00 am for Jammu. The pilot during flight informed the passengers that due to technical problem, the luggage of the passengers could not be carried alongwiththe said flight. Said luggage would however reach Jammu by next flight at 1:00 pm. After arriving at Jammu Airport, the complainant party was informed that the luggage would come by another flight and around 3:30 pm. Complainants party was assured that the luggage would be handed over at Katra. The taxi driver who took the baggage to Katra informed that the baggage in respect of 7 passengers only was delivered at Jammu Airport at 5:00 pm. Baggage in respect of the remaining 12 passengers (7 baggage) would be reaching Jammu on the next day i.e. 25.11.2007 at 9:30 am. It resulted into a forced stay of the 12 members of the team at Katra. Only 7 members could leave Katra for Vaishno Devi.
Grievance of the complainant party was that they had to face a lot of hardship and inconvenience as their essential medicines were lying in the baggage not made available to them.
Defence raised by the OP was that the complaint was bad for non-joinder of the parties as all 19 members were not impleaded. Another objection raised by the OP is that the trip in question was carried out for 'commercial purpose'. Contention of the OP was that due to technical problem the baggage could not be sent through the same flight.
After completion of pleadings, parties filed their affidavits towards evidence. Written arguments were filed by the complainant. OP chose not to file written arguments. OP also did not address oral arguments in the District Forum.
Ld. District Forum dealt with all the objections raised by the OP. Ld. District Forum observed that the trip was arranged by the complainant for 19 persons including himself. Tickets were booked online. It was only a Pilgrimage and by no stretch of imagination it could be called a commercial trip.OP had raised a plea that it was his prerogative to offload the passengers and their baggage.
In appeal OP has submitted that the complainant failed to lead any evidence of having spent any money towards stay in a hotel. The complainants party had no option but to stay in hotel. Complainant team comprising of 19 members claimed only an amount of Rs. 26,556/-. The said amount is highly reasonable and it does not require a formal receipt. Plea of the OP that it was entitled to offload the passengers or their baggage is of no avail for the reason that the baggage in the present case was not offloaded due to overbooking. The contention of the OP is that there was some technical problem which led to not loading the baggage in the same flight. OP has not satisfied as to what sort of technical problem it was. Be that as it may, the baggage did not reach on 24.11.2007 itself as assured. It reached Jammu on the next date i.e. 25.11.2007. It is not the case of the OP that there was no flight from Delhi to Jammu between the flight in question and the flight that brought the luggage on the following day. The complainants party could not enjoy the trip to their satisfaction as it got separated into two groups. They were also deprived of all the essential medicines carried by them. At a remote place one cannot have an easy see access to all the medicines. OP/appellant has failed to show if the impugned orders suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The amount of compensation of Rs. 40,000/- is not on the higher side. The total amount awarded by the Ld. District Forum is Rs. 69,516/- for a group of 19 passengers of complainant party. Rate of interest @ 6% p.a. p.m. is not a reasonable rate of interest. Appeal is, therefore, partly allowed to the extent that the complainant shall be entitled to an amount of Rs. 69,516/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of trip i.e. 24.11.2007till the date of its realization. Litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/- are not interfered with by this Commission. The aforesaid amount shall be paid by the OP to the complainant within a period of thirty days from today. Any amount if already paid by the OP to the complainant shall be adjusted against the payment to be made by the OP. Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.
FDR, if any, deposed by the appellant be released as per rules.
(N P KAUSHIK) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)