AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
The present revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 25.06.2018 of the Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala (for short "State Commission") in Case No. A/60/2017, whereby the appeal of the opposite party - Inter Globe Aviation Ltd. was dismissed and the Order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Tripura , Agartala (for short "District Forum ") was affirmed.
Brief facts relevant for the disposal of the case are that the complainants had purchased air tickets on 27.12.2016 from the opposite parties i.e. Indigo Airlines to perform their journey from Kolkata to Agartala on 11.01.2017 by flight No. 6E 139 at 9:00 a.m. Accordingly, the complainant arrived at the airport at the appropriate time. It took some time for check-in as there was 2 kg. extra luggage with them. However, the boarding passes were issued at 8:15 a.m. The complainants alleged that after receiving the boarding passes, they were stranded in a long queue. The officials of the opposite parties did not make any arrangement for the fast passage of the complainants. Due to this, the complainants could not board the flight. Due to deficiency of the opposite parties, the complainants had to stay back in Kolkata and board another flight the next day on payment of Rs. 24,460/-. It caused more inconvenience as the bag containing the articles of the baby was sent to Agartala but the passengers were in Kolkata. Being aggrieved by the act of the opposite parties, the complainants filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.
The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties by filing a written version. It was contended that the complainants failed to comply with the Condition of Carriage. Passengers were required to report two hours before the departure time. The check-in counters closed 45 minutes prior to the scheduled time of departure. The journey was arranged the next day and only the difference was taken from the complainants. So, there was no deficiency on the part of the OPs.
The District Forum, vide order dated 05.09.2017, allowed the complaint. It directed the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs. 24,460/- to the complainants which they had taken as the difference of the price of the tickets. Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 5,000 was also awarded by way of compensation and cost of litigation respectively. It observed as below:
"11. The plea of the petitioner is that the Indigo official did not help them and the security personal in the gate also did not render any help for going before the gate. Petitioner in the examination in chief stated that it was 8.30 to 8.45 hours for security checks. So their appearance before the gate was after 8.35. as per Condition of Carriage passenger are not allowed to board the flight for arrival. The boarding pass was subject to some terms and conditions. Surprisingly the Indigo staff did not render any help after issuance of boarding pass when Boarding pass was issued then indigo official and staff would render adequate help to the passenger so that they could go before the gate in time. That help was not rendered. The security personal were not Indigo official. But the Indigo official could request them for early check in the security so that the passenger could reach before the gate in time. It is also improper service by the Indigo staff who sent one luggage to Agartala though passenger were not allowed to travel. Without that luggage containing the food and other articles of the baby petitioner suffered. On the next date Indigo authority arranged the flight of all the petitioners from Kolkata to Agartala on payment of difference. According to petitioner they had paid Rs. 24,460/- for the journey of 6 passengers from Kolkata to Agartala. For the latches and deficiency of service of Indigo petitioner suffered. We considered that that the petitioner is entitled to get compensation and refund of the air fare they paid on 12.01.17 amounting to Rs.24,460/- for their sufferings they are also entitled to get compensation amounting to Rs.15,000/-. For litigation cost they are entitled to get Rs.5,000/-. In total they are entitled to Rs.44,460/- Direct the OP Indigo to pay the amount of Rs.44,460/- to the 6 petitioners within 2 months, if not paid it will carry interest @9% P.A."
Being aggrieved, the opposite parties preferred an appeal before the State Commission.
The State Commission vide order dated 25.06.2018, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the District Forum. Aggrieved by the impugned Order, the opposite parties have filed this revision petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. We find the Order of the State Commission to be well-appraised and well-reasoned. The State Commission concurred with the findings of the District Forum. Within the meaning and scope of section 21(b), we find no grave error in appreciating the evidence by the two fora below, as may cause to require re-appreciation of the evidence in revision. We note in particular the extract of the respective appraisals / observations made by the District Forum fora quoted, verbatim, in para 4 above. We find the award made by the District Forum (quoted in para 4 above), and as affirmed by the State Commission, to be just and appropriate. And, on the face of it, we find no jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice.
This Commission has limited jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that this Commission is not required to re-appreciate and reassess the evidence and reach to its own conclusion. Where there are concurrent findings of the fact, this Commission is not required to interfere on the finding of the fact. The only limited jurisdiction is to see whether there is any miscarriage of justice or the order is perverse. This view dovetails from the following two judgments.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed as under:
"Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held in the case of Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286 as under:
"The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has either failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in them or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons.
The revision petition, being misconceived and devoid of merit, is dismissed.
Needless to add that the District Forum shall undertake execution as per the law.
A copy each of this Order be sent to the District Forum and to the complainant by the Registry within ten days.