Delhi

StateCommission

FA/12/1120

B.K. SAHA - Complainant(s)

Versus

AIR FRANCE - Opp.Party(s)

21 Jul 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

                                                                    Date of Decision: 21.07.2017

 

First Appeal No. 1120/2012

 

(Arising out of the order dated 19.09.2012 passed in Complaint Case No. 197/2007 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI (New Delhi) M-Block, Ist Floor, Vikas Bhawan I P Estate New Delhi-110001)

In the matter of:

Sh. B K Saha

S/o Late B P Saha

12 J, Tower 4

South City, 375

Prince Anwar Shah Road

Kolkata-700 068

West Bengal                                         .........Appellant

 

Versus

 

Air France

7, Atma Ram Mansion

(Scindia House)

Connaught Circus

New Delhi-110001                                  ..........Respondent

                                                                  

CORAM

N P KAUSHIK                         -                  Member (Judicial)

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                   Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                  Yes

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

JUDGMENT

1.         Appellant has impugned the orders dated 19.09.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum VI Vikas Bhawan Delhi. Vide impugned orders the complaint filed by the complainant Sh. B K Saha was dismissed.
2.         In brief, complainant travelled by Air France from Mumbai to Paris on 26.03.2005. Complainant’s grievance was that the arrangements at the lounge for business class passengers were not upto the mark. There was limited choice of snacks and drinks. Seat No. 2J provided to him in the airline was not good. Complainant was on search of ‘transfer desk’ but after sometime he found that the desk labeled as ‘ticketing’ functioned as ‘transfer desk’.
3.         Defence raised by the OP/Air France was that the arrangements at the lounge were not within the control of any airlines. Airports were maintained by Airport Authorities. OP also submitted that on the relevant date and time, 15 seats in the business class were lying vacant. Complainant never expressed his grievance to any crew member who could have changed the seat.
4.         Ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint observing as under:

“We have gone through the detailed complaint, reply and evidences of both the parties. In our view the lack of comfort is no part of deficiency. The complainant appears to portray himself to be hyper sensitive towards his comforts, which does not behave to a senior IAS officer, who is supposed to know the ground realities in governance, and lack of control by government authorities on private airlines. We do not find sufficient reasons to hold OP guilty of deficiency on the feelings of a super sensitive senior retired bureaucrat. We are of opinion there is no deficiency on the part of OP as such complaint dismissed. No order regarding the costs.”

 

5.         I have heard at length the arguments addressed by the counsel for the appellant/complainant Sh. S Chaterjee Advocate and the counsel for the OP Sh. Amarjeet Kumar Advocate, at length.
6.         Ld. Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant has failed to take this Commission through the standards prescribed under any law or under any agreement between the flyer and the airlines. In the absence of any prescribed standards, it is not possible to say if the facility provided to the appellant/complainant was upto the mark or not. It is admitted case of the appellant/complainant that he never made any complaint of his seat being uncomfortable to any member of the crew. He simply complained of the depth of the seat. In the absence of any parameter for depth of the seat, I find it difficult to adjudicate upon the issue raised.
7.         Coming to the controversy of label of ‘transfer desk’/ticketing, such variations in expression from place to place and from airlines to airlines are bound to occur. Be that as it may, the contention of the respondent/OP is that it had a counter with the label ‘transfer desk’. It is not the case of the appellant/complainant that the desk ‘ticketing’ failed to help the complainant.
8.         In view of the discussion above, I am of the considered opinion that the appeal is devoid of merits. The same is hence dismissed.
9.         Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.

 

(N P KAUSHIK)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)​