Air India Airline Ltd V/S Major Amar inder Singh

Major Amar inder Singh filed a consumer case on 13 Jul 2015 against Air India Airline Ltd in the Patiala Consumer Court. The case no is CC/15/21 and the judgment uploaded on 16 Jul 2015.

Punjab

Patiala

CC/15/21

Major Amar inder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Air India Airline Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Smt Jaswinder Kaur

13 Jul 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

Complaint No. CC/15/21 of 16.1.2015

Decided on: 13.7.2015

Major Amar Inder Singh Pannu son of Sh.Ashok Raj Singh Pannu, resident of House No.830, Phase-I, Urban Estate, Patiala 97813-39098.

…………...Complainant

Versus

1. Air India Airlines Ltd., Safdarung Airport, Aurbindo Marg, New Delhi-110003 through its Director.

2. Air India Airlines Ltd., Regional Office : SCO 162-164,Sector 34A,Chandigarh.

…………….Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM

Sh.D.R.Arora, President

Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member

Present:

For the complainant: Smt.Jaswinder Kaur, Advocate

For Op No.1: Sh.S.R.Chaudhary,Advocate.

ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

The complainant had got his e-ticket booked with Air India i.e. the Ops for his flight from Delhi to Guwahati on 9^th September,2014 having made the payment of Rs.6711/- at 11.20 hours.The complainant is frequent traveler of Air India and his frequent flier number is 131038133.
On 8^th September,2014, the complainant received an e-mail from Air India that his flight from Delhi to Guwahati on 9^th September,2014 was rescheduled for 18:15 hours. Accordingly, the complainant had reached the Delhi Air port at 16.00hours on 9^th September,2014 but he learnt that the flight had already been taken off at the scheduled time and therefore, he had to purchase the new ticket for 10^th September,2014 for Rs.5087/-.
The complainant being an Army Officer had to join his duty to 10^th September,2014 but due to the aforesaid circumstances, he could not join his duty and as a result he was marked absent for 10^th September,2014, which created a gap in his service, which was taken seriously by the higher authority and his explanation was called. His reply to the same was awaited at the time of filing of the complaint. All this had occurred due to the wrong e-mail sent by Air India to the complainant and he is still awaiting the appropriate reasons for the same from Air India.
It is further averred by the complainant that he visited the office of Air India on 16.9.2014, who forwarded his case to the higher authorities. The repeated e-mails did not yield any result despite the passing of a period of four months. However, Air India vide e-mail dated 29^th November,2014, apologized for the inconvenience and informed him that his request had been processed but no action was taken by them till the date of the filing of the complaint.
It is alleged that the complainant has suffered a great inconvenience and embarrassment because of the wrong e-mail sent by Air India to the complainant, which left the complainant in an indignified position, which caused a great loss to him. The act and conduct on the part of the Op would go to show that they indulged in mal-practice, unfair trade practice as also deficiency of service. Accordingly the complainant brought this complaint against the Ops under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) for a direction to pay him the cost of two air tickets from Delhi to Guwahti i.e. Rs.6711/-+5087/-=Rs.11,798/- alongwith taxi fare of Rs.1200/-; to pay him Rs.two lacs by way of compensation on account of the harassment, humiliation and the mental agony experienced by him and further to award him Rs.25000/- towards the expenses of the litigation.
Here, it may be noted that the cognizance of the complaint was taken against Op no.1 only but the written version was filed on behalf of Ops no.1&2 through Sh.R.K.Minhas,Station Manager ,Air India (NACIL) Chandigarh, which is nothing but a clear cut admission of their lapse made in unequivocal terms. It is the plea taken up by the Op that it is unfortunate that they could not provide the necessary explanation for the faux-pas i.e. e-mail message, which made the complainant lose one day of his active service. An immediate and proper explanation by the Air India should have gone a long way in appreciating the fact that the delay in the complainant’s joining his duty was not deliberate or intentional .Similarly, it is admitted by the Op that the response of the Air India had indeed been slow but it is submitted that there was no mal practice or unfair trade practice adopted by them. It is admitted by the Op that the complainant suffered inconvenience and tension, specially on his being marked late in reporting on his duty in a disciplined force but he has not provided any documentary proof from his unit that he had been marked absent for one day which affected his service record.
It is admitted by the op that the cost of the original ticket i.e. Rs.6711/- and fare of the taxi i.e. Rs.1200/- are, no doubt, refundable but the complainant has not provided any receipt for having hired any taxi to and fro. It is also submitted that the litigation expenses claimed by the complainant are on the higher side. No prayer whatsoever is made by the op in the matter of dismissing of the complaint.
In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit, Ex.CB, the sworn affidavit of Elma Preet Sethi alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C15 and his counsel closed the evidence.
On the other hand, on behalf of the Op, it’s counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Mr.R.K.Minhas, Station Manager Air India(NACIL) Chandigarh alongwith documents Exs.OP1 and OP2 and closed the evidence.
The Op filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.
In the affidavit Ex.OPA, Mr.R.K.Minhas, Station Manager, Air India (NACIL) Chandigarh has categorically stated that it is a matter of record that the complainant was destined to take flight AI 889 from N/D to Guwahati on 9^th September,2014 at 11.20 hrs. However, an e-message received from Air India advised him that the flight AI 883 had been re-slated to depart at 18:15 hrs instead of 11.20hrs. When the complainant reached the check-in-counter around 4:00AM, he was told that the said flight AI 889 had already departed at its original scheduled time i.e 11:20 hrs. This necessitated him purchasing a fresh ticket for 10^th September. It is further stated by Mr.R.K.Minhas, Station Manager in his sworn affidavit Ex.OPA that the mis-understanding with regard to the departure flight of time arose because the complainant failed to read the e-message dated 8.9.2014 in its correct perspective. E-mail had referred the flight AI 853 in bold letters. The message was meant for another passenger booked on DEL-PUNE flight. Obviously it was the result of an inadvertent extra jump by the ‘mouse’. Affidavit further states that the point stands further emphasized by the second part of the e-mail, which reads: “ Please ignore this e-mail if, your ticket has the revised time of departure”. Clearly the complainant had been deceived by his faculties . He had full one day to appreciate the facts. The obvious first step for the complainant would have been to call up his booking agent or Air India’ counter at the airport to check and verify the message, which he did not do. Under the circumstances, the greater part of the fault lies with the complainant and consequently Air India can not be held responsible for the subsequent embarrassment, if any, suffered by the complainant. It is further stated in the affidavit that it is unfortunate that the Op could not provide the necessary explanation in the faux-pas(e-mail) who made the complainant loose one day of his active service .An immediate proper explanation by Air India should have gone a long way in appreciating the fact that the delay in joining his duty was not deliberate or intentional. The affidavit further states that the Air India’s response had indeed been slow but it is denied that there was any mal practice or unfair trade practice on their part. The affidavit further states that it is understandable that the complainant suffered inconvenience and tension particularly his being marked late in reporting on his duty in a disciplined forced but he has not provided any documentary proof from his unit that he was marked absent for one day, which could affect his service record.
On the basis of the said deposition made by Mr.R.K.Minhas, Station Manager, Sh.S.R.Chaduhary , the learned counsel for the Op made the submissions accordingly and submitted that no doubt it was a mistake on the part of Air India to have sent the e-mailEx.C7 to the complainant at his e-mail ID
In this regard, it was submitted by Smt.Jaswinder Kaur, the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant had received the e-mail Ex.C7 dated September 8^th,2014 at 10.08 pm i.e. at the time of night when the complainant might have gone to the bed. The complainant having received the e-mail from Air India with regard to the re-scheduling of his flight had got perplexed and would not have bothered to read flight no. because in the normal course of life a person is not expected to remember his flight number orally. The complainant had no reason to doubt the authenticity of the e-mail. What he was supposed to note at the time of night was the fact that his flight had been rescheduled at 18:15 hrs on 9^th September,2014.
It is important to note that in the written version filed by the Op, it is no where the plea taken up by the Op that the e-mail sent by Air India to the complainant did not pertain to flight No.AI 889, rather in reply to paras 4,5&6, it is categorically averred by the Op, “ It is a matter of record that the complainant was destined to take flight AI 889 from ND to Guwahati on 9^th September,2014 at 11.20hrs. However, an e-message received from Air India advised him that the said flight had been re-slated to depart at 18:15 hrs, instead of 11:20hrs(page 12 of complaint book). However, when the complainant reached the check-in-counter around 4pm, he was told that the said flight AI 889 had already departed at its original scheduled time i.e. 11:20hrs.This necessitated his purchasing fresh ticket for 10^th September and as a consequence he was late in joining his duty for one day”.
It was submitted by Smt.Jaswinder Kaur, that it is clearly admitted by the Op in the written version that it is unfortunate that the Op could not provide the necessary explanation for the faux-pas (e-mail message) which made the complainant loose one day of his active service and they have regretted their lapse with a rider that the same was not on account of mal practice or unfair trade practice.
The Op has produced in evidence Ex.OP1, the copy of the e-mail tendered in evidence by the counsel for the Op, as a report from the head quarter, sent to the complainant at his e-mail
We have considered the submissions. Anybody in place of the complainant would have perplexed on receiving such an e-mail at odd time of the night and one is not expected to go through the contents of the e-mail so meticulously that to compare the flight number mentioned in the e-mail with the flight number given in the ticket because in normal course of life, a person is not supposed to remember flight number orally. It is only when a person receives e-mail from other source that one may bother to consult the number of the flight but when the e-mail was received from the authorized quarter i.e. Air India, the complainant was not expected to verify the flight number.
As regards the complainant having suffered on account of the rescheduling of his flight, the complainant has produced in evidence Ex.C14, the copy of the show cause notice dated 12 September,2014, served upon him by Manjit Budhwar Lt. Col. Est Officer for Comdt., whereby he was apprised: “ (1) It is observed that you were to report to this unit after completion of your Temp Duty on 09 Sep 14, but failed to do so and reported one day late on 10 Sep 14. (2) Being an officer you have to set a right example in front of your troops, but you have proved other way round. This action of yours and such lackadaisical attitude has been observed very seriously. You are to give reasons as to why no disciplinary action to be taken against you for being late to join duty in Counter Insurgency area. Your reply should reach this office by 20 Sep 14.”
Ex.C15 is the reply dated 19 Sep 14, submitted to the said show cause notice by the complainant having explained: “ 1. Pl. ref. a show cause notice handed over to me on 12 Sep 14, 2. I have booked Flt No.AI 889 Del-Guwahati on 09 Sep 14, but due to a wrong email sent to me by customer care Air India ( copy attached as Appx.A), I missed the said flt. I have to book another flt for next day and thus reported to unit on 10 Sep 14., 3. I have approached the Air India office in Guwahati on 16 Sep 14 and also raised the issue with Air India by an email on the very first day (09 Sep 14) ( copy attached as Appx.B) regarding this wrong message sent by them. They have assured me a prompt action and also render a certificate stating the reason of sending me the wrong email. I will fwd the same certificate as soon as I will receive it. 4. I would request you to kindly wait till the certificate/explanation is received from Air India office to justify my delay”
The complainant has produced in evidence Ex.C8, e-mail dated Sep.9,2014 sent at 6:10 PM to