UMED NAGAR HOUSE Vs. VANDANA JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by M/s. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. against the order of Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Complaint No.9 of 2010. The State Commission has allowed the complaint of the respondent/Complainant against OP -1, the present appellant. The appellant has been directed to reimburse to the Complainant the cost of Cathay Pacific Airline Tickets for Hong -Kong and pay compensation of Rs.50,000/ -, together with cost of Rs.25,000/ -. No orders have been passed against OP -2/B.C.S. Tours and Travel Pvt. Limited.

(2.) FACTS , as seen from the record, relate to the journey of the two Complainants from Jaipur to Hong -Kong via Mumbai. Both sectors of the journey were to be performed with Jet Airways. The Jet flight from Jaipur to Mumbai arrived at 11:40 p.m. instead of its scheduled arrival of 10:20 p.m. As a consequence of this delay of one hour twenty minutes, they could not take the connecting Jet Flight to Hong -Kong, despite having boarding cards for Mumbai Hong -Kong flight issued to them at Jaipur itself. According to the Complainants, this was due to delay in operation of the Airport shuttle and long immigration and security queues for boarding. The Airline staff allegedly failed to make arrangement for putting them in the next flight to Hong -Kong and advised the Complainants to buy fresh tickets for the next day. The Complainants therefore, were forced to take 5:30 a.m. flight of another Airline, the next morning.

(3.) THE records submitted by the appellant have been perused and the counsel for the appellant has been heard at length. In the appeal memorandum, it is stated that two other passengers coming from Jaipur on the same flight had successfully boarded the connecting flight from Mumbai to Hong -Kong. It is therefore, alleged that the Complainants themselves were to blame for missing the flight. However, this argument is contradicted by the appellant 's own averment that the delay, if any was caused due to non -co -operation and delay on the part of immigration and security personnel. This bland claim, in the absence of any evidence of assistance provided by the Jet Airways staff, is at best a very feeble attempt to pass on the blame to others for their own lapse. Having issued tickets for both sectors of the journey on two flights of their own Airline, the appellants/OP had a clear obligation to ensure that the passengers boarding at Jaipur are able to board the connecting flight at Mumbai. This obligation becomes more direct and inescapable due to delayed arrival of the Jaipur -Mumbai flight. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to their written response before the State Commission and claimed that the delay in arrival of this flight due to air traffic congestion at Mumbai Airport resulting in delay in landing of the flight. This again cannot be accepted, if Jet Airways schedules a flight to land at Mumbai Airport at a particular time and another connecting flight to take off at a particular time, it must provide for time required in all services/functions including security, immigration and air traffic management, which are necessarily concerned with or mandated for such landing and departure. The travelling public is in no way responsible for delay caused by any of them.