Seat Filled With Dirt, No Safety Vest Provided, Jodhpur District Commission Holds Spice Jet Liable For Deficiency In Service

Brief Facts:

The Complainant booked an online ticket from Jodhpur to Chennai with Spice Jet. On the scheduled date of September 2, 2015, when the Complainant boarded the Spice Jet flight for the air journey, he found his seat filled with dirt and not properly cleaned. No sanitation had been performed, and upon receiving information to wear a safety vest for security, he noticed that there was no safety vest with his seat. The Complainant informed the flight staff and sent an e-mail to customer relations during the journey, but no action was taken. On September 3, 2015, the Spice Jet responded to the complaint with a prompt email acknowledging the issue. However, no further action has been taken. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the Dispute Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jodhpur-II and filed a consumer complaint against Spice Jet.

In response, Spice Jet contended that the Complainant's claim was beyond the limitation period. It argued that the Complainant's assertion of lack of cleanliness and absence of a safety belt on the flight was incorrect. It asserted that according to the regulations of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), the entire aircraft was cleaned before the flight, and each seat was inspected along with the safety check of every safety tool. It contended that on the Complainant's flight, the cleaning was done, and the safety vest was functioning properly. At the time, there were 160 passengers on board, and none of them raised any complaints about cleanliness or the functionality of safety tools. Spice Jet asserted that the Complainant's claim of an email sent during the journey was false upon investigation.

Observations by the District Commission:

The District Commission noted that the Complainant initially presented the complaint before the State Commission Circuit Bench, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. However, the State Commission, in its decision, directed the complaint to be filed before the District Commission. The District Commission, while considering the adjustment of the period of delay in filing the complaint due to the reassessment before the State Commission, found the complaint to be within its jurisdiction.

The District Commission noted that the Complainant reported the lack of cleanliness and safety belt to the staff during the journey and sent an email complaint to Spice Jet on the same day at 10:55 AM, with confirmation of receipt at 11:08 AM. It held that Spice Jet, despite acknowledging the receipt of the email, failed to provide information on any action taken regarding the complaint. It held that Spice Jet failed to conduct any investigation or respond to the Complainant's complaint. Therefore, the District Commission held Spice Jet liable for deficiency in services.

Consequently, the District Commission directed Spice Jet to pay a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for physical and mental distress and an additional Rs. 5,000/- for litigation expenses incurred by the Complainant.