JUDGEMENT

          Main grievance of the complainant in the present complaint against the op Air India Ltd. is that he booked a flight from Kolkata to Mumbai being flight No.AI 676 by purchasing ticket No. Etk 0985380202226C1 scheduled to depart on 09.11.2011 at 6:10 am because of a scheduled meeting with his clients at Mumbai on 10:30 am.  But on 09.11.2011 at about 4 am he received a phone call from telephone No.011-242861400 that flight will depart at 9 am instead of 6:10 am and again on 7:32 am he received another phone call from the said number that flight will depart at 3 pm.

          Complainant came to the Airport at 2 pm and tried to cancel the ticket but Air India officials had refused to cancel the same and ultimately the flight departed from Kolkata Airport at 4 pm on the same date and the complainant reached Mumbai at about 6:30 pm and had to cancel his meeting.  Fact remains complainant is a business consultant and he was going to attend a business meeting on behalf of his client M/s Guiness Securities Ltd. at Mumbai on 09.11.2011 at 10:30 am and had suffered severe mental and physical hardship and also suffered a financial loss of Rs.10 lacs because of the cancellation of flight and for which op is guilty for deficiency in service.

          Complainant made his complaint at Kolkata Airport authority on 09.11.2011 and op vide their letter dated 10.11.2011 being letter No.4056 reported that the delay caused due to reasons beyond their control.  But for the harassment caused by the op, the complainant suffered huge loss for which this complaint was filed.

          On the other hand op by filing this written statement submitted that the entire allegation is false and fabricated and the aircraft scheduled to operate was under rectification due to windshield crack and the extent of delay could not be ascertained and the expected time of departure (ETD) was revised thrice to 09:30 hrs./15:00 hrs./16:00 hrs, at 02:30 hrs./05:48 hrs./11:55 hrs respectively.  But from the PNR, it reveals that the initial two delays (09:30 hrs./15:00 hrs.) were informed to the complainant and flight finally departed at 16:15 hrs. and complainant availed of it.

          But it is submitted that complainant did not approach the Air India Counter for cancellation of their journey and if that would be placed before the fare counter invariably after due deduction the sum would be refunded.  But as because op has no fault there is no question of deficiency in service.

          Fact remains that the Air India flight AI 676 on 09.11.2011 (STD 06:00 hrs.) was progressively delayed due to technical and operational reason which was beyond the control of Air India Ltd.  The legal notice dated 15.05.2012 was received by the op from the complainant’s lawyer and op replied on 01.06.2012 and it is submitted that the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation and everything was done as per rules and regulations of the Civil Aviation Department and the rules and regulations of Air India.  In the circumstances, the complaint should be dismissed.

Decision with reasons

          Heard the complainant personally and asked the complainant to show under what provision of the office of the Director General of Civil Aviation, Technical Centre of India as per circulation dated 06.01.2010 complainant is entitled to get compensation and in this regard this Forum is aware of that circulation of the Director General of Civil Aviation effective from 15.01.2010 and even after stating the same today we have failed to search out any fault on the part of the ops.  At the same time complainant has ultimately failed to prove that he is entitled to compensation as per clause 3.5 of the Notification of the Director General of Civil Aviation effective from 15.08.2010.

          Anyhow the complainant has tried to show that Clause 3.2 is applicable in his case.  But considering that clause we have gathered that the said clause is applicable in respect of the passengers who have not been informed at least 3 hours in advance of the cancellation of the flight of which they were scheduled to travel.  But in the present case complainant was given the information of cancellation of flight and practically the complainant ultimately availed of the said flight on that date, though it was the said flight left airport at belated stage at about 06:00 pm and for which the present complainant is not entitled to any compensation as per clause 3.3.2.

          But considering the provision of clause 3.3.1 we have gathered that in case of cancellation of flight and in order to reduce inconvenience caused to the passengers as a result of the cancellation of the flight of which they were booked to travel whenever possible airlines should endeavor but invariably informed the passengers of cancellation of their flight as per in advance as possible of the schedule time of departure provided at the time of vacating his/her reservation and the passenger has given contact information e.g. Ticket Number or flight number by email or any other alternative reasonable form requested them by the Airlines.  So, as per spirit of that clause 3.3.1 complainant was informed 2 hours well in advance as per travel before departure and at the same time complainant’s own version is that he availed of the said flight on that date i.e. on 09.11.2011 at about 06:30 pm.  So, it is clear that the op gave all information and always kept contact with the complainant for which op ultimately appeared before the Airport well in advance at about 02:00 pm and availed of the said journey.  So, question of cancellation of ticket does not arise and there is no prove that complainant expressed his desire to cancel his tour programme by the said flight.

          Another factor is that the clause 3.4 is applicable in case of delays in flight.  But as per spirit of the said provision or clause it is found that the complainant in case of delay in flight shall have to get such extra awards for appearing means to avail of the flight and so it is clear that as per clause 3.4 complainant got all facilities and he was informed again and again and flight was ultimately departed reached at 06:30 hrs and complainant reached at appropriate time at 02:00 pm at Kolkata Airport.  So, clause 3.4 was completely complied by the ops in the present case.  Practically complainant ultimately failed to give any satisfactory answer about his grievance.  But only his grievance is that he failed to meet the meeting as a business consultation with the party for which he has lost huge amount.  But in this regard we have gone through ruling reported in (2000) I Supreme Court Case Page-66 that resulting in delay in arrival at the destination abroad or journey or departure of the flight at belated stage can cause financial loss and harassment and mental torture to the complainant but for that reason such a delay cannot be treated as deficiency in service and no consumer is entitled to get any relief as per provision of the C.P. Act 1986.

          Moreover, after studying the provision of section 2(1)(d), 2(1)(g) of the C.P. Act 1986 we have gathered that the spirit of provision without appropriate fault, in purification, short coming or in deficiency, quality nature and manner of performance which is required to be performed by presence in pursuance of or otherwise any loss to any service.  So, the operation of proving the deficiency of service is upon the consumer who alleges it.  But in fact after relying upon the said judgement and also fact of this case we have gathered that the present complainant fact has failed to have  established any willful fault, short comings or deficiency in service of the op Air flight authority and in the absence of deficiency of service for such damages but cannot initiate proceeding under the present Act of Commission and Omission attributed to the op which otherwise did not mean the deficiency in service.     

          Moreover we have also relied upon the above ruling from which we have gathered that the Hon’bleSupeme Court has confirmed the spirit of law and also the definition of service and deficiency very widely and also determine in that case that in case of Airport authorities Act the consumers are not entitled to get any benefit in case of late arrival or late departure of flight. 

          In the above observation we are convinced to hold that there is no material to prove by the complainant that ops act is negligent in manner and they have their no deficiency in service because Airport Authority and Air flight service authority are guided by the standing rule for safety and security of the passengers at large and they cannot any way defy the said guidelines directions and the notification in running the flight.  After thorough study of the complaint and the written version including relying upon the above discussion and substance we find that in the submission of the complainant (personally) against the present op and the allegation as made by the complainant against the op is found completely baseless and without any foundation.

          In the result stated above the complaint bears no merit in the eye of law.

          Hence, it is

ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest against the op but without any cost.