NANITA SHARMA Vs. GO AIRLINES (INDIA) PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short facts of the case are that the complainant had a ticket for travelling by Airways Go Airlines on 30.1.2007 and the departure time of the aircraft at Mumbai was at 2.15 p.m. reaching Delhi at around 5.50 p.m. The complainant reached the airport, and when she was getting her baggage check -in, she was informed by the air persons that the flight was delayed. Thereafter the air people informed the complainant that the flight will take off at 5.30 p.m. Thereafter, the complainant was informed that the flight was further delayed by one hour. The plane ultimately arrived at 6.50 p.m. and she reached Delhi at about 11.15 p.m. as against the schedule time on 5.50 p.m. Her grouse is that she and other co -passengers were exhausted, and most of them went back to their houses. She had to wait at the lounge during the stay period and there was no arrangement for drinking water, refreshment or food. A representation to this effect was also submitted by the passengers including the complainant to the airport authorities the same day, at Mumbai itself. The complainant, alleging the aforementioned facts, charged the OP with deficiency in service, and filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum with the prayer that the OP be directed to refund him Rs.3,975 fare of the air ticket, Rs. 20,000 towards compensation and Rs. 11,000 towards the costs of litigation.

(2.) OP opposed the claim and filed the written reply and pleaded that the flight was rescheduled on account of operational problem, for the reason that there was a bird -hit incident of aircraft at Delhi, due to which the said aircraft was grounded, as a result of which a number of flights were re -scheduled. The delay of aircraft was beyond the control of OP, and therefore airports and airlines cannot be made liable for such incident. As provided in Citizen Charter that in case of circumstances beyond Go Airs control, Go Air may delay or cancel a flight and in case the flight delays beyond nine hours, in that case make OP gives full refund for the booking. The OP pleaded that when the departure time was re -scheduled from 14.50 hours to 17.30 hours, passengers were promptly informed on phone including the husband of the complainant, who had purchased the ticket for the complainant, who in turn had replied the airport authorities, that he would inform the complainant about the same. The OP pleaded that OP airline is not a luxury airline, and provides services at the cheapest rate to make travel affordable for the common man, and does not supply any food items or refreshment inside the airlines on freebasis. For this reason, and also because the complainant had to wait for an hour only, as she was informed in advance about the initial delay from 14.50 hours to 17.30 hours, the OP was not obliged to provide her food or refreshment. The OP denied any negligence on its part.

(3.) THE District Consumer Forum on consideration of evidence of both the parties found that there is no deficiency on the part of the OP, as OP had to delay the flight in the circumstances beyond his control, considering safety and security of the passengers, and dismissed the complaint.