JET AIRWAYS (INDIA) LTD. vs VARADERAJAN MURUGA GHATIKACHALAM & 2 ORS.

This First Appeal has been filed against the order dated 24.06.2014 of the Tamil Nadu, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (in short ''the State Commission'') by the appellant Jet Airways (India) Ltd.

Brief facts of the case are that complainants booked tickets with the appellant to fly from Chennai to New York and New York to Cleveland originally on 30.07.2010. They changed their bookings to 7.8.2010 by paying Rs.7000/- extra. Due to overbooking the appellant could not carry the complainants on the flight on 7.8.2010 and they had to go by catching another flight of Qatar Airlines. The complainants filed a consumer complaint before the State Commission, which vide its order dated 24.06.2014 granted the following relief:-

" In the result, the complaint is allowed against the 1 opposite party alone.

The 1 opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- each to the complainants 1 st & 2 as compensation for deficiency of service and for the physical and mental agony undergone by the complainants and expenses and additional expenses met out by them during the alternative arrangement of travel by the 1 opposite party as against the st original travel arrangements as per the confirmed tickets issued by them.

The 1 opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as costs in all to the st complainants 1 & 2 together

The directions of payments shall be complied within a period of 6 weeks from the date of this order.

The complaint against the 2 opposite party is dismissed as not proved."

The opposite party/Jet Airways (India) Ltd. has filed the present appeal against the above order of the State Commission.

We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records.

The learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the overbooking of passengers is done by all the airlines to guard against last minute cancellations and no-shows as per the direction/circular of the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA). The learned counsel has also argued that the complainant has demanded compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- in his complaint and the State Commission has awarded Rs.2,50,000/- each to the complainants. It seems that the order of the State Commission is based on the wrong fact given in the complaint that the ticket from New York to Cleveland was for U.S. $6134.40, whereas the actual ticket was for US $613.40. It may be typographical error in the complaint or a deliberate attempt to misguide the State Commission. Thus, there is a serious material irregularity in the order of the State Commission, which requires to be corrected in the appeal. The learned counsel also mentioned that there was a delay of 67 days in filing this appeal. He stated that the delay has been caused due to the fact that the Advocate identified for filing the appeal had to travel outside India on urgent basis and some delay has occurred on account of internal correspondence and inter-office communication.

We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the records thoroughly. The first question that needs to be decided relates to the issue of limitation. In the application for condonation of delay, the appellant has indicated the following reasons:- "That the appellant appointed the present counsel in Delhi to file the Appeal against order dt. 24.06.2014 and sent the certified copies by courier. The present counsel received the documents from the appellant on 3.10.2014 and started preparation of the appeal, however due to urgency the appointed counsel had to travel outside India on 13.10.2014 and could return only on 20.10.2014 after which, steps to be taken for finalization of appeal and sending it to Mumbai for approval could be done only after 26.10.2014 on account of closure of offices and courts on the occasion of Diwali. That the appeal was sent for approval to appellant on 2.11.2014 and was received back with comments on 5.11.2014 for changes and alterations. That the appeal was finalized on 08.11.2014 and authorized representative of the appellant could travel to Delhi only on 13.11.2014 to sign the appeal and affidavit.

It is therefore, submitted by the appellant that there is a delay of sixty seven (67) days in filing the present appeal, for the aforesaid reasons, as mentioned hereinabove, which were beyond the control of the appellant, despite expedient steps taken by the appellant in preferring the appeal before this Hon''ble National Commission. It is submitted that there is no negligence on the part of the appellant in filing the present appeal."

While considering the question of condoning the delay, Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has observed: "It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer foras".

While considering the delay in filing the appeal, we find that the application has been filed for condoning the delay of 67 days whereas the office has indicated the delay of 82 days. Be it as it may, it is seen that the delay has allegedly occurred due to the fact that the advocate who was to prepare the appeal, had to travel outside India apart from some delay occurred in internal communication and decision making within the organisation. The appellant is a known Airline having large number of employees. The management of the organization could have utilized the services of another advocate in the circumstances. The above judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India is attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that no sufficient ground is made out for condoning the delay.

Thus, gross negligence, deliberate inaction and lack of bonafide are imputable to the appellant. We do not find any sufficient ground to condone the long delay of 82 days. Hence, application for condonation of delay stands dismissed. Consequently, the First Appeal filed by the appellant stands dismissed being barred by limitation. No order as to costs.