Deccan Aviation Limited.

adminadmin Administrator
[FONT=&quot]Complainant:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]Sri.Jashwant K Mehta.,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]S/o. Late Karshan Das Mehta,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Aged about 75 years. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]Smt. Taria Mehta,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]W/o. Jashwant K Mehta.,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Aged about 73 years, [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (Deleted as per the order dated 15/10/2008)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Both are residing at :[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] C/o. Dr.Preeti V parekh,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] No: 1-75, Diamond District,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Kodihalli, Airport road,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Bangalore – 560 008[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] /vs/[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Opposite party:[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] M/s. Deccan Aviation Limited., [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Office at 35/2, Cunningham road,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Opposite to Canara Bank, [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Bangalore – 560 052.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] O R D E R[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]SRI.G.SIDDANAGOUD., PRESIDENT., [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the Opposite party for the refund of the amount of Rs.5050/- with compensation of Rs.50,000/-, costs of Rs.10,000/- with other reliefs. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] The brief facts of the case is that the complainants submit that the 2nd complainant is the wife of the 1st complainant who is suffering from various ailments due to old age. The 2nd complainant had suffered brain haemorrhage, fracture in the left wrist and pelvic bone and had also undergone transplantation of both the knees. The 2nd complainant due to the above said reasons was completely immobile. The 2nd complainant cannot walk by herself and required the support of a wheel chair. The 1st complainant who is also old and ailing is partially immobile. The 2nd complainant had to undergo an operation at Pune because of which both the complainants visited Chennai. After the operation the complainants wanted to return to Bangalore. The Opposite party is a company established to provide airline services. The complainants son booked two tickets with the OP through makemytrip.com. the tickets were booked through e-mail in flight DN 104 vide ticket No: 5747923, 5747923; Chennai Bangalore (MAA – BLR) economy class. While booking the tickets, through e-mail a specific request was also made by phone for confirmation to the OP, to provide wheel chair, both at Chennai airport and Bangalore airport. The Op has also displayed on its website, the special features provided by it such as providing wheel chair and other such facilities. The flight was scheduled to depart on 12.1.2008 (Saturday) at 5.30 PM from Chennai. The duration of journey was one hour five minutes and the flight was scheduled to arrive at Bangalore airport by 6.35 pm on the same day. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Both the complainants reached the Chennai airport and reported by 4.30 PM and the complainants requested for wheel chair in writing on the printed forms made available to us by Air Deccan for wheel chairs at Chennai’s and Bangalore airports but the ground staff of the OP neglected their request inspite of the complainants explaining the week health condition of the complainants. However, after several repeated request, somehow after an hour, i.e., by 5.30 PM wheel chairs were made available. The Op had specified that the flight would not take off by 5.30PM but had provided for wheel chair only 5.30 PM. The complainants were put to untold misery and hardship as the Op did not provide the wheel chairs to them in time. Once the complainant boarded the flight they were informed by the Op that the flight was delayed and would only leave by 6.40 PM. However, the flight was delayed and took off only by 7.00 PM. The flight landed in Bangalore airport by 8.00 PM all the passengers on board disembarked. However the wheel chairs were not provided to the complainants, and they had to continue to wait for wheel chairs. Though they had specifically requested the OP to provide wheel chair at Bangalore, again the OP neglected it. The complainants were made to wait for 40 minutes again on the flight itself. The next destination of the flight was to Hyderabad and all the passengers to Hyderabad boarded the flight and the complainants were left stranded, as the wheel chairs were not provided. It was a very embarrassing situation for the complainants. Ultimately the Op provided the complainants with wheel chairs only by 8.40 PM. The staffs of the Op were indifferent and callous. Being acidity patients the complainants found it very difficult to sustain themselves from 4.30PM to 8.40 PM without anything available for consumption. After the traumatic experience, when the complainants started to complain about the pathetic situation faced by them though out the journey, the staff of the op ignored them. A complaint in the prescribed form which was available in the Bangalore airport was filled up and given, but neither the crew nor the officials gave any importance. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] The 1st complainant was thus constrained to write a letter dated 8.1.2008 stating the hardship caused during the journey for which the Op thorough its Manager, customer relations had replied accepting the lapse and apologizing for the same. However, the Op was not ready to make good the loss caused to the complainant due to inefficient service provided by it. Further, the complainant again issued a notice dated 4.2.2008 calling upon the Op to refund the amount of flight ticket, as the service provided by it was insufficient and against its assurance. But the OP denied the claim very negligently stating that such deficiency in service was caused due to infrastructural constraints and thus, any claim arising thereby cannot be compensated. Hence the complainant approached this forum. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Opposite party appeared through its counsel, filed its version and also gave evidence by way of affidavit, 1st complainant gave his evidence by way of affidavit. Counsel of both the parties permitted to submit their written arguments. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] This complaint was filed by the 1st complainant along with his wife. As the 2nd complainant died on 05.08.2008, and as per the request of the complainant NO:1 the name of the 2nd complainant was deleted from the complaint as per the order dated 15.10.2008. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] All the facts have been admitted in this case. The main contention of the OP that when there are simultaneous arrival and departures across the airport, there was some delay in providing the wheel chair and that cannot be called as deficiency in service. When we peruse the letter dated 24.1.2008 replied by the Op they have clearly admitted about the delay in providing the wheel chair. The complainant and his wife aged 75 and 73 years respectively. From 4.30 PM to 8.00 PM they were in the airport even at Bangalore also there was inordinate delay in providing wheel chair to the wife of the complainant nearly for 40 minutes and till than both were forced to stay back near the flight where it was landed. The complainant before commencement of the journey itself requested for providing the wheel chairs as they are not in a position to walk. Inspite of the request the staff of the OP never bothered to provide facilities as requested by the complainant. This sort of an act on the part of the OP duly amounts to deficiency in service. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] The complainant has claimed the refund of Rs.5050/- towards air ticket paid by the complainant. The complainant and his wife have completed the journey through the flight of OP. When they have taken the journey in the flight, they are not entitled for the refund of the air ticket. However they are entitled for the relief as compensation and costs. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] In view of the discussion made above we are of the opinion that the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the Op. Accordingly we pass the following order. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]O R D E R[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- ( Rs.Three thousand only ) to the complainant with costs of Rs.2,000/- ( Rs.Two thousand only ) . And this amount is to be paid to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order.[/FONT]

Comments

  • SidhantSidhant Moderator
    edited September 2009
    Shashikala D.

    D/o Doddaveerappa,

    Aged about 36 yrs,

    R/at No.219, I Cross,

    Teachers’ Colony,

    Chandapura, Anekal Taluk,

    Bangalore

    …. Complainant.

    V/s

    01. M/s Air Deccan,

    No.35/2, Cunningham Road,

    Opposite to Canara Bank,

    Bangalore – 560 052.

    02. M/s Kingfisher Red Airlines,

    (formerly called as M/s Air Deccan

    And M/s Simplify Deccan) No.35/2,

    Cunningham Road, Opposite to

    Canara Bank, Bangalore – 560 052.

    …. Opposite Parties


    -: ORDER:-


    This complaint is filed for a direction to the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.6,300/- towards missing baggage and Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service, loss of reputation, mental agony and inconvenience.

    2. The case of the complainant is as under:-

    The complainant who is working in Human Resource Department at Narayana Hrudayalaya Hospital, Hosur Raod, used to often board the flights of the Opposite Parties for personal as well as official purposes. On 02/11/2007, she boarded Air Deccan Flight No.741 to return to Bangalore from Ahmedabad along with two others. On her arrival at Bangalore Airport, she found that her baggage was missing.

    Immediately she complained to Opposite Party No.1 Air Deccan Authorities and it was brought to her notice by the said authority that the baggage was missing during transit and the same was to be traced. Thereupon a property irregularity report was issued to the complainant. In the said report, the name of Amaiakka B.K. is also included by the Opposite Party No.1 for easy identification of the missing baggage. The complainant also handed over the photo copies of the boarding pass, baggage tags and also gave the necessary information. As per the rules and regulations of the Opposite Party No.1, the claim with regard to the missing baggage is to be settled after the expiry of a fortnight.

    The missing baggage was estimated by Opposite Party No.1 at Rs.6,300/- and the same was endorsed in the bottom of the property irregularity report. Opposite Party No.1 failed to settle the claim after the expiry of the stipulated period. She approached Opposite Party No.1 several times and she was assured by Mr.Rajeev, Mr.Shiny and Ms.Apurva – the employees of Opposite Party No.1 that her missing baggage is to be traced and if the same is not traced, the claim would be settled at the earliest. In spite of approaching the authority several times, the claim remained un-settled nor the missing baggage was traced. She issued legal notice dated 02/01/2009 to Opposite Party No.1. The noticed was received by Opposite Party No.2 which came into force on 29/08/2008 and therefore Opposite Party No.2 is also impleaded as a party to the proceedings. Neither Opposite Party No.1 nor Opposite Party No.2 gave any reply to the legal notice nor complied with the demand. Hence, the complaint.

    3. On service of notice, Opposite Parties 1 & 2 entered appearance through counsel on 21/04/2009. But in spite of sufficient time granted, they failed to file the version. On 22/05/2009 when the matter stood posted for arguments, the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties filed an application for grant of time till 26/05/2009 to file the version. Finding that even as on 22/05/2009 also the version was not ready, the purpose of filing the application was to seek further time, the said application was rejected.

    4. In support of the claim, the complainant has filed her affidavit. The learned counsel for the complainant has filed written arguments.

    5. The points for consideration are:-

    1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

    2. Whether the complainant entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

    6. Our findings are:-

    Point No.1 : In the Affirmative

    Point No.2 : As per final order,

    for the following:-

    -:REASONS:-

    7. Since in spite of entering appearance, the Opposite Parties have failed to file the version and participate in the proceedings, the material on record has remained unchallenged. From the documents placed on record it is clear that on 02/11/2007, the complainant had boarded Air Deccan Flight No.741 for her journey from Ahmedabad to Bangalore and after arriving at Bangalore, she found her baggage missing and thereupon the property irregularity report was prepared and filed with Opposite Parties. The copy of the said report is also produced by the complainant, in which as contended by the complainant, the Opposite Parties themselves have calculated the amount payable to the complainant as Rs.6,300/-, in case the baggage is not traced. In this report, it is recorded that the missing baggage weighed 14 Kgs and the amount payable is calculated at Rs.450 Per K.G. and thus Rs.6,300/- is arrived at as the amount payable to the complainant in case the baggage is not traced.

    It is the contention of the complainant that till 20/02/2009 – the date of the complaint, the Opposite Parties failed either to trace and hand over the baggage or to pay compensation as calculated on the property irregularity report. This contention of the complainant that right from 02/11/2007 the date of journey till 20/02/2009 – the date of complaint, the Opposite Parties failed to either return the missing baggage or to pay compensation in that regard has remained unchallenged. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to claim Rs.6,300/- as compensation for the missing baggage from the Opposite Parties. Besides compensation of the missing baggage, the complainant has claimed Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service and for loss of reputation and mental agony.

    From the averments in the complaint, we are unable to make out that the complainant is entitled to such huge sum as compensation towards deficiency in service and mental agony. The complainant has not even disclosed the contents of the missing baggage to make it appear that on account of loss of such articles she has been subjected to mental agony. However, in view of the fact that for more than one year, the Opposite Parties have failed to settle the claim of the complainant, we deem it necessary to award a reasonable compensation to the complainant. In our opinion, it is just and sufficient if the complainant is awarded compensation of Rs.5,000/- . In the result, we pass the following:-

    -:ORDER:-

    1. The complaint is allowed in part.

    2. The Opposite Parties are directed to pay Rs.6,300/- to the complainant towards missing baggage and Rs.5,000/- towards compensation. Compliance of this order shall be made within eight weeks from the date of communication, failing which, the amount payable to the complainant shall carry interest at 10% Per Annum from the date of the order till the date of payment.
Sign In or Register to comment.