Harsoria Healthcare Pvt Ltd vs ROYAL JORDANIAN AIRLINES

THE present complaint has been filed by five complainants namely, Harsoria Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. , a Company, Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Mrs. Sunanda Dutta, Ms. Mrinali Gupta and Master Pronnoy Gupta. The complainants No. 2 to 5 booked flight tickets from New Delhi to Amman for travel on 04.08.2014, Tel Aviv to Amman and Amman to New Delhi for journey on 14.08.2014. Their flight was cancelled from Tel Aviv to Amman on 14.08.2014 because of state of war in Israel. The complainants were given the option either to wait till 18.08.2014 for the flight from Tel Aviv to Amman or to travel from Tel Amman to Amman on their own and catch the Amman to Delhi flight on 14.08.2014. The complainants travelled on their own under difficult circumstances and managed to catch their flight on 14.08.2014. Consequently, they filed the complaint case before the State Commission with the following prayers: - "a) Direct the Opposite Parties to jointly and severally pay to the Complainants the following amounts as compensation/damages;

Actual expenses incurred by the Complainants amounting to Rs.46,129/ - (Rupees Forty Six Thousand One Hundred Twenty Nine Only) towards travel expenses from Tel Aviv to Amman, hotel accommodation in Eilat, food, fee for land exit as Israel border etc.

Cost of airfare of the flight from Tel Aviv to Amman cancelled by the Opposite Party No. 1 on 14.08.2014 without any prior intimation to the Complainants.

Compensation of Rs.25,00,000/ - (Rupees Twenty Five Lac Only) on account of physical and mental agony, ordeal misery, tension and harassment caused to the Complainants due to grave the deficiency of services and unfair trade practices on behalf of the Opposite Parties under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Cost of the Legal Notice amounting to Rs.35,000/ - (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Only).

Litigation Expenses incurred by the Complainants.

b) Pass any other order or relief which this Hon''ble Commission deems fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice".

THE State Commission picked up a conflict with the amount of compensation demanded by the complainants in the sum of Rs.25,00,000/ - alongwith litigation costs in the sum of Rs.35,000/ -. The State Commission observed: - "xxxxxxxx no court fee on the claims preferred before the foras concerned is payable. Therefore, tendency to defeat the hierarchy as per the scheme of the Act is always there. Thus, in our considered view, the consumer foras at various level are required to guard against the inflated claims with malafide intentions to defeat the hierarchy of the foras concerned. In the instant case, the amount allegedly spent by the complainant is Rs. Forty Six Thousand and Hundred Twenty Nine but he has added disproportionate demand of compensation of Rs.25,35,000/ - approximately as compensation to bring this case within the jurisdiction of the State Commission. The above act of the complainant obviously is malafide with a view to defeat the scheme of the Act. Thus, the complaint is liable is be dismissed on the ground that this Commission does not have pecuniary jurisdiction. In our view, we are supported by three members Bench of this Commission in the matter of Praveen Kumar Singhia Vs State Bank of India 2003 INDLAWS NCDRC 144".

However, it gave the liberty to the complainants to file fresh complaint before the District Forum within its pecuniary jurisdiction.

DURING the Revision Petition, we have heard the counsel for the petitioners. It is clear that the compensation asked for by the complainants is on the higher side. It has no connection with the principal amount demanded in the sum of Rs.46,129/ - . The complainants have asked for a hefty compensation. Although, there lies no rub for the complainants to demand as much compensation as they think it to be proper, yet, there should be some basis for the same. There is a huge difference between the principal amount and the compensation asked for by the complainants. Normally the compensation asked for may be less or at the most equal amount of principal or twice or thrice of it.The complainants are asking for a special compensation in this case but they have not prima facie made any ground for the same. When we tried to ask the status of the family or income tax returns, the counsel tried to avoid these questions. How the Commission can allow fantasy to obscure reality. The Commission has to be empirical and practical in confronting reality. This view neatly dovetails with a recent authority by the Apex Court, while confirming the order of this Bench titled as Pesi Dady Shroff Vs. Boehringer Ingetheim Denmark and Anr., Civil Appeal No.9453 of 2013, dated 10.07.2013, the Hon''ble Supreme Court was pleased to make the following observations : -

"Leaving the question of law open, as to whether in such a fact situation, provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, are applicable, it is open to the appellant to approach the Civil Court for the simple reason that for the purchase price of Rs.4 -5 lakhs in 2003, he has claimed a sum of Rs.73.35 crores. Such a claim can be adjudicated only after the assessment of evidence, etc., before the Civil Court and, therefore, it is a fit case where, even if the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is applicable, the appellant must approach the Civil Court for appropriate relief. With these observations, the civil appeal is disposed of".

The same ratio will apply to this case to a hair.

IN Synco Industries Vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur nd Others, 2002 2 SCC 1, the three Hon''ble Judges of the Apex Court held: - "3. Given the nature of the claim in the complaint and the prayer for damages in the sum of rupees fifteen crores and for an additional sum of rupees sixty lakhs for covering the cost of travelling and other expenses incurred by the appellant, it is obvious that very detailed evidence would have to be led, both to prove the claim and thereafter to prove the damages and expenses. It is, therefore, in any event, not an appropriate case to be heard and disposed of in a summary fashion.

The National Commission was right in giving to the appellant liberty to move the civil court. This is an appropriate claim for a civil court to decide and, obviously, was not filed before a civil court to start with because, before the consumer forum, any figure in damages can be claimed without having to pay the court fees. This, in that sense, is an abuse of the process of the consumer forum".

IT is apparent that the petitioners are asking for mammoth amount of compensation for which lengthy evidence and cross -examination is required. The Cross -examination of the witnesses is the life blood of the legal system. It is only way a Judge can decide whom to trust. An answer during the cross -examination may wreck one''s case. The Court''s duty is to get to the bottom of the matter. The Civil Court, not being a summary trial court, has to go to the root of every problem.

IN the result we give two options to the Complainants, either to comply with the order of the State Commission if they consider that they were ill advised or if they still insist for such compensation, they can approach the Civil Court/appropriate Forum for appropriate remedy/ redressal of their grievances, as per Law. Further, they may seek help from the celebrated authority reported in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, 1995 3 SCC 583, so far as the question of limitation is concerned.