State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Justice S.Jagadeesan, Former Judge ... vs The General Manager, Spicejet Limited, ... on 16 December, 2011
Date of filing : 12.10.2010
Date of order : 16.12.2011
BEFORE THE TAMILNADU
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
(BENCH
II)
Present: Thiru.A.K.Annamalai, M.A., M.L., M.Phil., Presiding Member Judicial
Thiru.S.Sambandam,
B.Sc., Member
O.P.No.54/2010
FRIDAY THE 16th DAY OF DECEMBER 2011.
Justice S.Jagadeesan, Former Judge High Court of Madras, No.23, 3rd Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai 600 020.
Complainant Vs.
1. The General Manager, Spicejet Limited, Rep. by its General Manager, 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase IV, Gurgaon, HARYANA 122 016.
2. The Regional Manager, Spicejet Limited, Chennai International Airport, Meenambakkam, Chennai 600 027. .. Opposite parties This complaint coming on before us for hearing finally on 22.11.2011, upon perusing the material documents, and upon hearing the arguments of counsel for complainants side and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Commission made the following order.
Counsel for the Complainant :
M/s. D.Shivakumaran, Advocate.
Counsel for the Opposite parties :
Set Exparte.
A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL
1. The complainant filed this complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act- 1986, claiming direction for reimbursement of Rs.29,682/- being the loss of sitting fees and Air fare wrongfully forfeited by the opposite parties and Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and humiliation suffered by the complainant due to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and for costs.
2. The Gist of the complaint in brief is as follows :- The complainant is a retired High Court Judge and former Chairman of Intellectual Property Appellate Board of India purchased a ticket through his travel agency for his journey by air from Chennai to Coimbatore on 28.04.2010 by flight SG-281 and for his return journey from Coimbatore to Chennai on 29.4.2010 by flight SG 282 operated by the opposite parties. The departure of flight No.SG 281 from Chennai on 28.4.2010 was at 8.45 hours to reach Coimbatore at 9.05 hours. On 28.4.2010 the complainant reached the airport in time and check in by 8.05 hours. The boarding pass was issued by allotting the seat No.13-E. After undergone security check he reached the waiting lounge and waiting for the announcement for calling upon the passengers to board the flight, when it was announced the complainant was about to stand in queue which was very long. One of the ground staff of the opposite parties on knowing the identity of the complainant extended the courtesy of requesting the complainant to wait instead of going through the routine queue and assured that he would come and take the complainant once the rush in the queue is over. Accepting the words the complainant was waiting in the lounge till 8.40 hours and he was under impression that there is unscheduled delay of departure of the flight by few minutes as the said staff did not turn up for taking the complainant and when the complainant went to the boarding gate at 8.40 hours of his own accord to the shock and dismay the complainant was informed that the boarding process for the flight was already over. Plane has been non jockeyed and the complainant cannot board the flight and any amount of persuasion by the complainant did not have any positive effect and he was denied boarding without any justifiable reason and there was no final announcement through the public system before the boarding gate was closed and thee was no phone call to the cell number furnished by the complainant as mentioned in the ticket before the closure of boarding gate. If the passenger did not turn up as a lost resort the ground staff to run through the waiting passengers to verify their destination and to trace out the missing one after the checking in. None of the procedure was done and when the complainant contacted the ground staff at the boarding gate at 8.40 am she told that she tried to contact the complainant over phone which was false as no such call was recorded in the cell phone of the complainant. Even though the complainant voluntarily approached the boarding gate since there was neither a paging announcement nor a phone call for the last minute boarding call having checked in for the flight undergone security check the complainant cannot go anywhere except to the waiting lounge to board the plane. The explanation of the ground staff for not allowing the complainant would only prove their lapse. The ground staff who was at the boarding gate denied the complainant boarding of flight tore off the boarding pass at 8.50 hours and kept it with her and when the complainant insisted that he be given a letter that he did not travel the said staff made an endorsement on the ticket as follows :- PAX CHECKED IN AND NOT BOARD THE FLIGHT PAX GATE NO SHOW FOR THE FLIGHT and signed her name after affixing the seal of the opposite parties. Hence complainant sent notice to the 1st opposite party on 29.4.2010 calling for compensation for the loss and inconvenience for which a reply was received with false allegations as though complainant has not reported and there was no response from the given telephone of the complainant and subsequently the complainant sent a rejoinder to the opposite parties and filed this complaint claiming the reliefs as stated above.
3. In the proceedings before this Commission in this complaint, the opposite parties 1 and 2 did not turn up in spite of the notices served on them and thereby opposite parties 1 and 2 were set exparte on 2.3.2011 and 30.3.2011 respectively.
4. The complainant side has filed their proof affidavit and documents filed by him are marked as Exhibits A1 to A4. Exhibit A1 Xerox copy of E-Ticket issued by Travelling Agency of the complainant, with endorsement Gate No show by ground staff of the opposite party. Exhibit A2 Xerox copy of Notice sent by the complainant to the opposite party by RPAD. Exhibit A3 Xerox copy of Reply by the opposite party dated 6.5.2010. Exhibit A4 Xerox copy of Rejoinder dated 8.5.2010 by the complainant enclosing earlier notice dated 28.4.2010.
5. Points for determination are :-
1) Whether the opposite parties have committed deficiency of service in providing air service by not allowing the complainant who was having valid boarding pass and undergone security check without following the procedure regarding the allowing of passengers to board the flight in SG 381 on 28.4.2010 ?
2) To what relief ?
6. Point No.1 : In this complaint enquiry the complainant being the retired High Court Judge and then Chairman of Intellectual Property Appellate Board of India contended that for his journey on 28.4.2010 from Chennai to Coimbatore through the opposite parties flight departure from Chennai, even though he was having valid boarding pass and allotted the seat No.13-E having reached the boarding lounge well in time even at 8.15 am for the departure of flight at 8.45 am as per Exhibit A1 to reach Coimbatore at 9.50 hours as per schedule in order to attend an important meeting at Coimbatore, he was not allowed to board the flight by contending there was no turn up of the passenger in time at the boarding gate. It is the case of the complainant that being the dignitary person in the status of High Court Judge while attempting to board the flight through standing in the queue by identifying his personality one of the ground staff offered to take him to the flight after becoming the rush is over for the queue by believing the same when he was waiting as the ground staff did not turn out till 8.40 am as promised to take him to board the plane when the complainant approached the ground person at the boarding gate he was refused to boarding by stating that flight was already non jacking and refused to allowed the complainant by tearing of the boarding pass itself and after insistence of the complainant she made an endorsement on the ticket under Exhibit A1 as follows :- Pax checked in and not board the flight Pax ghatenoshow for the flight and thereby he was not permitted to board the flight which are all not denied by the opposite parties as per the reply notice as per Exhibit A3 for the notice given by the complainant in Exhibit A2. But in Exhibit A3 it is contended as follows :- We would further like to inform you that if a guest does not report the boarding gate, regular announcements are made. Please note that at first pre-boarding announcements are made then boarding announcement are made and then a final boarding announcement is made but even though if a guest does not report the boarding gate, a paging is done by calling guests name and flight details. Lastly the guest is also been called up on the mobile number mentioned in the booking and a similar procedure was followed for you also.
According to the complainant the above said procedure was not at all followed at the time of occurrence by the opposite parties and it is also falsely alleged by the opposite parties that they have contacted him through his phone number given as 9840078118 and no response from the same.
The complainant contended that there was no such phone call was received and it was not also recorded in his cell phone. To disprove the same, the opposite parties have not taken any steps or effectively convinced the complainant in this regard. Further in view of the no show that is for not turned up to board the flight the refund was rejected as per the reply in Exhibit A3 for which the complainant also sent a rejoinder under Exhibit A4 in which it is clearly stated that apart from the refund of the fare for refusing the complainant to board the flight and also pointed out the claim also made as compensation for which there was no further response or reply from the opposite parties. In those circumstances as per the contentions of the complainant and the documents filed on behalf of the complainant which are all not denied by the opposite parties or disproved effectively except to state that because of non show to board the flight the refund was not able to be made.
7. In those circumstances in view of the details of the complaint supported by the proof affidavit and the documents relied upon by the complainant it is clearly proved that because of the negligence or the careless act of the ground staff of the opposite parties, while taking the complainant to board the flight which made him to suffer the non boarding of flight on his own accord in the routine manner if otherwise he was not disturbed by the ground staff he would have boarded the plane and thereby missing the flight he was deprived of from attending the meeting at Coimbatore on that date which caused alleged loss of Rs.25,000/- as his sitting fees and mental agony and thereby the opposite parties are in negligence and by not allowing the complainant to board the flight in spite of his earlier arrival to the boarding lounge after completing all the formalities which are all not denied and proved in view of the endorsement made by the ground staff of the opposite party in Exhibit A1. Accordingly we are answering this point in favour of the complainant.
8. Point No.2 :- In view of the finding in point No.1, as above we are of the view the complainant is entitled for the claim of refund of the fare for the flight to Rs.4,682/- as claimed. The complainant claimed Rs.25,000/- towards loss of sitting fees regarding an important meeting to be attended at Coimbatore. But he has not filed any proof or documents for the same and to prove the purpose of visit is only for that alone. Hence we are of the view that the claim of Rs.25,000/- as loss of sitting fees to an important meeting cannot be granted. As far as the compensation relating to mental agony and humiliation suffered the complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- which we feel some what fabulous and very high, even though the mental agony and sufferings cannot be quantified by way of fixing certain amount. While considering the facts and circumstances of the case since the complainant happened to be a dignified and honorable retired Judge of the High Court and then Chairman of Intellectual Property Appellate Board of India. We are of the view that a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- being as compensation to be awarded would justify to same extent to compensate for mental agony and human humiliation, would be sufficient in this case. Accordingly we are answering this point in favour of the complainant.
9. In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed (1) To refund a sum of Rs.4,682/- being the flight charges collected from the complainant and not allowed to board the flight due to their deficiency of service (2) To pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and humiliation suffered by the complainant due to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and (3) To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as costs to the complainant.
S.SAMBANDAM A.K.ANNAMALAI, MEMBER PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL LIST OF DOCUMENTS Exhibits of the complainant A1 Xerox copy of E-Ticket issued by Travelling Agency of the complainant, with endorsement Gate No show by ground staff of the opposite party.
A2 Xerox copy of Notice sent by the complainant to the opposite party by RPAD.
A3 Xerox copy of Reply by the opposite party dated 6.5.2010.
A4 Xerox copy of Rejoinder dated 8.5.2010 by the complainant enclosing earlier notice dated 28.4.2010 Exhibits of the opposite parties : - nil -
S.SAMBANDAM A.K.ANNAMALAI, MEMBER PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL INDEX : YES / NO sg/B-II/aka/ Airways