KINGFISHER AIRLINES LIMITED Vs. LATA SIKRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 09.11.2011 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory Chandigarh (for short the 'State Commission') in First Appeal No. 293 of 2011, Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. (opposite party in the complaint before the District Forum) has filed the present petition, purportedly under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the 'Act'). The appeal before the State Commission was also filed by the present petitioner against the order dated 26.09.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT Chandigarh (for short the 'District Forum') in complaint case No. 603 of 2010. The complaint before the District Forum was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner-Airlines in not issuing the boarding pass to her on a Delhi-Hyderabad flight for which the complainant held confirmed / OK ticket. The District Forum partly allowed the complaint of the complainant with the following directions:

(2.) The facts and circumstances which led to the filing of the complaint are succinctly stated in the order passed by the fora below and need no repetition at our end. The main deficiency alleged by the complainant was that despite she having confirmed/OK ticket for a flight No. IT-802 scheduled to leave Delhi at 0925 hours and arrive at Hyderabad at 1135 hours, she was denied the boarding pass although other male member of the group were accommodated in the said flight. After several hours, she was put on the flight of another Airlines viz. Spice Jet, which left Delhi around 1530 hours and reached Hyderabad late in the evening, as a result of which she could reach the ultimate destination Bidar on the following day at about 130 hours. She being a woman remained apprehensive throughout the journey on flight as well as by road which caused her great mental torture and physical harassment. It would appear that once the grievance was brought to the notice of the petitioner-Airlines, they as an act of remorse/goodwill gesture, offered her complementary return ticket on any domestic flight, which she declined to accept and then filed the complaint. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner-Airlines not disputing the above facts but they claim that there was no deficiency in service on their part and explained that complainant was denied boarding pass for the scheduled flight on the ground of over-booking of the flight.

(3.) We have heard Mr. Vaisalya Vigya, Advocate counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Advocate counsel for the respondent and have considered their submissions. Learned counsel for the petitioner would assail the order passed by the fora below primarily on the ground that they are not based on correct and proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence and material brought on record. In particular he contended that the award of compensation, besides directing the petitioner to provide a return ticket to the complainant was not at all called for as according to him, neither the terms and conditions of the petitioner-Airlines in relation to the denied boarding/cancellation/delays nor the guidelines issued by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation provide for grant of compensation to the said extent.