JET AIRWAYS (INDIA) LTD. 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 State Commission has held that the problem of delay in immigration and security checks was caused only by delayed arrival of Jaipur-Mumbai Jet Flight. The Airline staff failed to give the necessary help and assistance even when boarding passes has already been issued to the Complainants for the Jet flight to Hong-Kong. Staff of Jet Airline knew that the Complainants had short time due to delayed arrival of their flight and they would need to be transported to the international terminal. But, no such assistance was provided. There was also no material to prove that the Complainants were offered seats in the next flight to Hong-Kong. Therefore, the State Commission held it to be a case of deficiency of service on the part of OP-1/Jet Airline.