The complainant herself has filed this appeal since she is not satisfied with the partial relief granted to her by the District forum, Central Mumbai in CC No.32/08 decided on 31/1/09. While allowing the complaint partly, the forum below directed Opponent Air France to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.3000/- to the complainant. Not satisfied with this quantum of compensation awarded, the complainant has come up in appeal.

          Facts to the extent maerial may be stated as under..

          The complainant had booked air ticket with Air France for traveling from Nice to Paris and for onward journey from Paris to Johansburg she had taken ticket from South African Airways as she had to attend Business Planning Session to be held at Johansburg on 9/7/07. The departure time of flight No.AF7705 on 8/7/07 was 14.55 and its arrival time in Paris was 16.30 hours whereas her connecting flight of South African Airways i.e.flight No.SA273 was at 19.15 hours on the same day. According to complainant, flight from Nice to Paris was delayed and hence she requested the Nice airport authority to accommodate her in the earlier flight, but no one paid heed to her request. The original flight which she had booked departed at 16.49 hours instead of 14.15 hours. Thus, there was delay of 2 hours and it reached terminal No.3 at Paris airport at 18.18 hours which was 1 hour before her connecting SA 273 flight’s departure from terminal No.1. The distance between these two terminals is 20 minutes away and it was not possible for her to collect luggage and report to terminal No.1 within that short period. She further found that she could not collect luggage within reasonable time and ultimately she missed the connecting flight by which she had to go to Johansberg by South African Airways. So she had to stay back in Paris and reschedule her trip and had to suffer physical and mental harassment. Therefore, she sent legal notice to recover her expenses. When Opponent did not comply and gave false reply to her notice, she filed consumer complaint claiming Rs.1,19,459.30 with 10% interest. She also claimed compensation of 4 lac and cost of 20,000/-.

          Opponent filed written statement and resisted the case. According to it, due to the traffic restrictions, the said flight  from Nice Airport departed at 16.49 hours which was beyond the control of Air France Authorities. They pleaded that carrier took no responsibility in making connection as has been clearly stipulated in IATA stipulations mentioned on the ticket jacket. Opponent pleaded that as per general conditions of carriage they are not liable for change of flight schedule and it can be changed for the purpose of safety and for the purpose of ATS restrictions and for any other problem which may be beyond the control of carrier. Opponent further pleaded that they are not liable for misconnection of the complainant. It further pleaded that there were only two flights of the Opponent from Nice to Paris and their scheduled departure was 13.15 hours and 16.20 hours. Complainant had checked in at Nice Airport at 13.42 hours. So, she could not be accommodated in the flight whose departure time was 13.15 hours and hence her request could not be accepted.

          They admitted that there was some delay in retrieving the bags at Paris Airport, but they pleaded that in the Airport like Paris, they have to handle huge baggage which situation is bound to result in some time for baggage to be retrieved and, therefore, that per se can not be said to be a deficiency in service on their part. Opponent pleaded that there was no onus on them to provide accommodation because they had taken complainant from Nice to Paris on 8/7/07 as per air ticket booked with them.   They pleaded that under general conditions of carriage, the carrier is not liable for damages if their staff take all the measures to avoid damage. They pleaded that the claim for the mental agony could not be given simply because complainant could not take further connecting flight of SA Airways at 19.15 hours on the same day. They pleaded that the complaint being frivolous, be dismissed with compensatory cost.

Upon hearing both the counsels and on perusal of  affidavit and documentary evidence placed on record, the District forum negatived the contention of the complainant that respondent was liable since she missed the connecting flight from Paris to Johansberg. The forum below relied upon article IX 1(a) & 1(b) of general conditions of carriage of Opponent wherein it is clearly mentioned that

“Flight schedule have no contractual value, they are solely intended to inform passengers of the flights offered by the carrier”

It also mentions that,

“The flight schedules printed on the carriage tickets would be subject to change for the conditions beyond the control of the carrier and it would be integral part of the contract of carriage.’

Relying on this provision the forum below turned down the prayer of the complainant that since there was delayed flight of Opponent from Nice to Paris by two hours, that would give a cause of action for the complainant to seek damages on that count itself. Secondly, condition No.9 of conditions of contract printed on ticket jacket also laid down that, ‘Schedules are subject change without notice and carrier assumes no responsibility for making connection”. Relying on this condition, the forum below also held that merely because of delay of 2 hours in reaching flight by 114 minutes to Paris from Nice, and resultantly the complainant could not take up connecting flight from Paris to Johansberg by flight No.SA273 at 19.15 hours that would not entitled complainant to claim compensation for missing of the connecting flight since condition No.9 of conditions of contract printed on ticket jacket also stipulated that, ‘Schedules are subject change without notice and carrier assumes no responsibility for making connection”.

However, forum below was pleased to hold that there was deficiency in service on the part of Opponent in not retrieving the baggage of the complainant for 4 hours after she landed at Paris Airport by flight No.AF 7705, and for this reason, she was put to lot of hardship and inconvenience and the staff of the Opponent had not assisted her in giving back her baggage within reasonable time and holding Air France guilty on this count, the forum below directed Opponent Air France to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.3000/- to the complainant. Not satisfied with this quantum of compensation awarded, the complainant has come up in appeal.

We heard submissions of Adv.S.Vidyarthi for the appellant and Adv.Amirsingh Pasrich for the Respondent. We are finding that the relief not granted by the Forum below to the appellant was on sound footing and supported by relevant provisions of general conditions of contract and/or IATA conditions of contract. The forum below had rightly turned down prayer of the complainant that for missing up of her connecting flight No.SA 273 from Paris to Johansberg, she should be awarded compensation  because her flight from Nice to Paris came late by 1.14 hours.   The forum below relied upon No.9 of conditions of contract printed on ticket jacket which provides that, ‘Schedules are subject change without notice and carrier assumes no responsibility for making connection”. So, for the fact that due to delay of opponents flight from Nice to Paris, the complainant could not catch her connecting flight No.SA 273 of South African Airlines whose scheduled departure was 19.15 hours, the Opponent could not be held liable in view of the condition mentioned supra. We are finding that the said finding given by the learned District Forum, Mumbai Central is appearing to be just and proper and it can not be called in question before us while dealing with this appeal. 

Secondly, we are also finding that the delay in flight No.AF 7705 from Nice to Paris by 1.14 hours was certainly beyond the control of Opponent as the Air Traffic Control of Nice Airport had put restrictions on Air France to initiate the flight at scheduled time. So, this was beyond the control of Air France and under Article 9(1)(a) of general conditions of carriage it has been clearly stipulated that there can be changes in the flight schedule and if there are changes in flight schedule beyond the control of carrier, the carrier can not be held responsible. In this case the appellant’s flight was delayed by 1.14 hours because of restrictions but by Air Traffic Control, Nice Airport. So, this delay can not give cause of action to the complainant to claim damage for missing of connecting flight on 08/07/2007. So, this ground raised by the complainant fails and we are finding the order of the Forum rejecting the claim of the complainant on this count is just and reasonable.

The only relief that could be allowed in favour of the complainant was compensation for the delay in giving baggage of the complainant at Paris Airport within reasonable time which the forum has rightly awarded as Rs.10000/- with cost of Rs.3000/-.

In the circumstances, we are finding that the order passed by the forum is just and proper and there is no substance in the appeal filed by the original complainant. As such, we pass the following order.

                                                            ORDER

1.     Appeal stands dismissed.

2.     No order as to cost.

3.      Inform the parties accordingly.

Pronounced on 22/03/2011