Order by:

Mohinder Singh Brar, Member

1.       The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 stating that she purchased tickets from Opposite Party No. 3 of the flight operated by the Opposite Party No.1 to travel from New Delhi IGI Airport to Pearson International Airport, Toronto, Ontario(Canada) for 22.10.2023 and a return ticket were also booked/purchased at the same time to return back to New Delhi. Submitted that the return ticket that was issued to the complainant was via Zurich, Switzerland. The return flight was scheduled on 5^th December, 2023 and was supposed to reach Delhi on 6^th December, 2023. The complainant after making all the travel plans reached the New Delhi IGI Airport well on time to board her flight scheduled to depart on Sunday at 22:30 (10.30 P.M) via Flight No. AC043 operated by Opposite Party No. 1. After getting all the clearances and the boarding pass, the complainant boarded the flight and reached her destination i.e. Pearson International Airport on 23^rd October, 2023. After spending her time in Canada and doing all the work, the complainant made arrangements to travel back to India as she already had her return ticket confirmed for 5^th December, 2023 for travelling from Toronto, Canada via Zurich, Switzerland to New Delhi, India and when she reached the Pearson International Airport to board her flight, the complainant's luggage was found to be in excess of the limit laid down by the Airline. Then the complainant paid the extra amount of 141.80 CAD (Canadian Dollars) approximately amounting to Rs. 8601/- for carrying the excess luggage. After paying amount for excess luggage, the complainant completed all the necessary formalities and waited to board her flight as scheduled but the flight was delayed by almost 5-6 hours and after a lot of waiting, the complainant boarded her flight and the flight departed from Toronto, Canada.

          Submitted that the flight operated by Opposite Party No.1 was scheduled to depart from Pearson International Airport on 5^th December, 2023 at 20:30 (08:30 P.M) and was supposed to reach Delhi on 7^th December, 2023 at 00:15 (12:15 A.M) via Zurich, Switzerland. This flight was a connecting flight and the complainant had to change her flight upon reaching Zurich Airport. However due to delay of approximately 5-6 hours in flight which is not in the control of the complainant, the next connecting flight i.e. Air Canada AC 6826 by which the complainant was supposed to reach New Delhi already took off on its scheduled time from Zurich International Airport and in this way, the complainant missed her connecting flight on account of the fault/delay/deficiency of the Opposite Party No. 1. It is the duty of the Airlines to make sure that in such a case, there is little or no inconvenience to the passenger and the Airlines are duty bound to make sure that the passenger reach his/her destination as scheduled and upon time and without charging anything in excess of what has already been paid by the passenger at the time when the air-ticket was purchased. Alleged further that the Opposite Party No.1 instead of giving a flight ticket to the complainant directly to reach New Delhi, gave an air-ticket of London, of Swiss Airlines (Flight No.LX 0324/085) and the complainant was told that she would be given an air-ticket to travel to Delhi when she reaches London Heathrow Airport. After boarding the said flight and upon reaching London to the utter dismay of the complainant, she was told yet again that she would be given a flight ticket of Dubai and upon reaching Dubai Airport, she would be given a connecting flight ticket by way of which she would be able to travel to New Delhi. The complainant boarded another flight from London Airport of Fly Emirates (Flight No. EK 0032/397) and reached Dubai.

Alleged further that for travelling to New Delhi, the complainant was provided with an air-ticket of Air India Flight No. Al 930. After getting all the formalities done, it was conveyed to the complainant by the dealing official dealing at the airport, that she is carrying excess luggage and if she wants to carry all her luggage along with her to Delhi, she would have to pay the extra amount as per prevailing rates of the airlines or she should have to drop/minimize her luggage to bring it under the permissible load allowed by the airlines. Upon hearing this, the complainant showed the dealing official at the airport, the receipt of the amount that the complainant had already paid for her excess luggage at the Pearson International Airport, Toronto, Canada amounting to 141.80 CAD (Canadian Dollars), but the dealing officials were adamant and they threatened the complainant that she would not be allowed to board the flight with her excess luggage without paying for the same. Hence, the complainant paid the charges for the excess luggage as demanded by the Airlines i.e. Air India amounting to 1350 UAE Dirhams (approximately amounting to Rs.30,469). Submitted further that according to the original flight schedule of the complainant, the complainant was supposed to reach New Delhi on December, 2023 at 00:15 (12:15 A M) but due to the rerouting and on account of huge deficiency in service by the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2, the complainant was able to reach New Delhi on the intervening night of 8^th-9^th December, 2023. Furthermore, the taxi service which was already booked for New Delhi to Moga so that the complainant can come home safely and with comfort, also charged double the amount i.e. Rs.20,000/-. Hence, this complaint. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-

a)       Opposite Parties may be directed to pay an amount of Rs.30,469/-(1350 UAE Dirhams) for the excess luggage which has been charged by Opposite Party No.2 unjustly from the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of payment of excess luggage till its realization.

b)      To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- for the excess amount charged by the Taxi.

c)       To pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, and harassment.

c)       To pay Rs.20,000/- as legal expenses.

d)      And any other relief which this Commission may deem fit and proper be granted to the complainant in the interest of justice and equity.

2.       Upon service of notice, none appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 to contest the complaint. Hence, Opposite Party No.1 is proceeded against exparte.

3.       Opposite Party No.2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of merits, vexatious and is liable to be dismissed; the complainant has grossly failed to make out any case or cause of action for the present complaint and the complaint under reply is liable to be rejected. As per the complaint, the complainant had utilized the services of Opposite Party No.3 to book the to-and-fro flight tickets from New Delhi to Ontario, Canada on Opposite Party No. 1's airline on 22.10.2023 and 05.12.2023 respectively. For the return journey dated 05.12.2023, the Complainant was originally scheduled to travel from Ontario, Canada to New Delhi via Zurich on the Opposite Party No. 1's airline. However, the said flight experienced a delay of 5-6 hours, resulting in the Complainant missing her connecting Air Canada flight (Zurich to New Delhi). Consequently, upon reaching Zurich, the Complainant was provided with a ticket to London by Opposite Party No. 1 on Swiss Airline (Flight No. LX 0324/085). In London, she was issued another ticket to Dubai on Emirates (Flight No. 0032/397) and thereafter, in Dubai, she was provided with a ticket for the final leg of the journey to New Delhi with Opposite Party No. 2, Air India. Submitted that at Zurich, the Swiss Air authorities had reissued the ticket for the Complainant's subsequent travel. As per established industry norms and regulations, when airlines endorse tickets on other carriers, it is imperative to mention all relevant details, including the baggage allowance entitlements. However, in the present case, no such remarks were provided for the Dubai to New Delhi sector. In the absence of any specific remarks or endorsements, the respective airline's policy becomes applicable for that particular sector. In the present case, no such relevant endorsement pertaining to the baggage allowance was endorsed upon the Opposite Party 2 and thus, in accordance with the relevant policies, the Opposite Party charged the Complainant with baggage allowance. Averred that Opposite Party No. 2-Air India Limited acted in complete conformity with its applicable policies and did not levy any illegal or extra charges on the Complainant for the Dubai to New Delhi sector. On merits, all other allegation made in the complaint are denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint is made.

4.       Opposite Party No.3 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the answering respondent issued the air tickets in question to the complainant which was a round trip ticket from New Delhi to Toronto and from Toronto to New Delhi via Zurich, Switzerland. Once the ticket has been sold to a consumer, the answering respondent has no control over the way the operations of any airlines are carried on, on a day-to-day basis. The answering respondent is only concerned that when the ticket was sold to the customer, it was a valid ticket, which in this case is clearly established as the complainant was not returned/turned away from any of the airports in question due to the invalidity of the air ticket sold to the customer. The answering respondent has no control over the schedule the airlines and if the complainant has suffered any monetary or mental harm due to the changed schedules of the airlines, it is completely the responsibility of opposite Party No.2 and 3. The answering respondent is not in any way liable for the damages caused to the complainant. On merits, all other allegations made in the complaint are denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint is made.

5.       In order to prove the case, complainant has placed on record her affidavit as Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8.

6.       On the other hand, Opposite Party No.2 has placed on affidavits of Sh.Vijay Punj, Assistant Manager-Commercial, Air India Ltd. as Ex.OP2/1 and Ex.OP2/2 alongwith copy of rules as Ex.OP2/3. Whereas, Opposite Party No.3 has placed on record affidavit of Sh.Sunny Dhand, Authorized Representative, Golden Travel Advisor as Ex.OP3/1.

7.         We have heard the ld. counsel for both the parties and also gone through the record.

8.       It is admitted and proved on record that complainant purchased tickets from Opposite Party No. 3 of the flight operated by the Opposite Party No.1 to travel from New Delhi IGI Airport to Pearson International Airport, Toronto, Ontario(Canada) for 22.10.2023 and a return ticket were also booked/purchased at the same time to return back to New Delhi via Zurich, Switzerland. It is not disputed that when the complainant reached at Pearson International Aiport, Toronto, Canada for return back to New Delhi, her luggage was found to be in excess and accordingly she paid extra amount of Rs.141.80 CAD for carrying the excess luggage. It is also not disputed that the flight from Pearson International Airport, Toronto, Canada was delayed by 5-6 hours and due to that delay in flight from the connecting flight of the complainant from Zurich, Switzerland was missed. Thereafter Opposite Party No.1 issued a flight ticket to complainant of London Swiss Airlines and upon reaching London she was given an air-ticket of Dubai and upon reaching Dubai she was given air-ticket to travel Delhi, where complainant was again charged 1350 UAE Dirhams for excess luggage. Now, the grouse of the complainant is regarding the said excess luggage charges for which the complainant was charged twice.

9.       Now we have to determine that whether complainant has rightly been charged for excess luggage or not?

10.     Opposite Party No.1 did not opt to appear and contest the complaint. In this way, the Opposite party No.1 has impliedly admitted the correctness of the allegations made in the complaint.

11.     On the other hand, it is not denied by Opposite Party No.2 that complainant was charged for excess luggage twice, however, it has been argued by ld. counsel for Opposite Party No.2 that at Zurich, the Swiss Air authorities had reissued the ticket for the Complainant's subsequent travel. As per established industry norms and regulations, when airlines endorse tickets on other carriers, it is imperative to mention all relevant details, including the baggage allowance entitlements. However, in the present case, no such remarks were provided for the Dubai to New Delhi sector. In the absence of any specific remarks or endorsements, the respective airline's policy becomes applicable for that particular sector. In the present case, no such relevant endorsement pertaining to the baggage allowance was endorsed upon the Opposite Party 2 and thus, in accordance with the relevant policies, the Opposite Party charged the complainant with baggage allowance. As such, there is no deficiency in service on its part and it is Opposite Party No.1 which failed to make endorsement in the air-ticket of the complainant.

12.     We have carefully gone through the rules of Airlines duly produced on record by Opposite Party No.2 and as per the rules mentioned in Article 36-Succesive Carriage, both the Opposite Parties i.e. Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 are jointly and severally liable for any loss occurred to passenger. The relevant Article 36-Succesive Carriage of the Rules is reproduced as under:-

1.       In the case of carriage to be performed by various successive carriers and falling within the definition set out in paragraph 3 of Article I, each carrier which accepts passengers, baggage or cargo is subject to the rules set out in this Convention and is deemed to be one of the parties to the contract of carriage is so far as the contract deals with that part of the carriage which is performed under its supervision.

2.       In the case of carriage of this nature, the passenger or any person entitled to compensation in respect of him or her can taken action only against the carrier which performed the carriage during which the accident or the delay occurred, save in the case where, by express agreement, the first carrier has assumed liability for the whole journey.

3.       As regards baggage or cargo, the passenger or consignor will have a right of action against the first carrier and the passenger or consignee who is entitled to delivery will have a right of action against the last carrier and further each may take action against the carrier which performed the carriage during which the destruction, loss, damage or delay took place. These carriers will be jointly and severally liable to the passenger or to the consignor or consignee.

In view of the rules mentioned above, the both the Opposite Parties i.e. Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 are liable to pay the loss of the complainant, as due to their deficient act, she was charged twice for excess luggage and indulged into this avoidable litigation without any fault.

13.     Sequel to the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed in part and Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, jointly and severally, to refund the amount of 1350 UAE Dirhams i.e. Rs.30,469/- as per Indian Currency to the complainant. Opposite Parties are also directed to pay compository cost of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. Complaint against Opposite Party No.3 stands dismissed. The pending application(s), if any also stands disposed of. The compliance of the order be made by Opposite Parties next within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the Opposite Parties  are further burdened with additional costs of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) to be paid to the complainant for non compliance of the order. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced on Open Commission