THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.
C.C.354/2014
Dated this the 16th day of February, 2019
(Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB. : President)
Sri. Joseph Mathew, M.A., L.L.B. : Member
ORDER
Present: Hon’ble Rose Jose, President:
This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for an order directing the opposite parties to pay him a sum total of Rs.35,000/- as compensation for the loss, injury, mental agony and other hardships suffered by him on account of the indifferent attitude and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not allowing him to board in the flight AI-657 on 15/03/2014 for his journey from Mumbai to Calicut even when he is having a valid and confirmed ticket.
Petitioner’s case is that he had booked an air ticket of the opposite parties on 10/03/2014 for the journey from Mumbai to Kozhikode on 15/03/2014 in the flight AI 657. The departure time of the said flight was 10.00 am. The return ticket was also booked for 17/03/2014 at 13.50 hrs on Air India Flight. This was an emergency booking as he has to participate in the Sanjayanam of his deceased grandfather that is to be done by grandsons of which he was the main person leading this rituals. It is stated by the petitioner that on 15/03/2014 he reached at the Mumbai Airport with his confirmed ticket at 8.50am but there was a long and lengthy queue at the Air India counter. He reached the counter by 9.10 am and he was told by the Air India staff that the gate was closed and he was asked to go back. The concerned authorities did not give him the time of the day even after he had pleaded to them the emergent situation. He had no check-in baggage except one hand baggage as he was flying due to the emergency. As there was no other option, he was forced to buy another ticket by Jet Konnect 82-3523 which left at 11.40hrs by spending Rs.15,812/- and by the time he reached Kozhikode the rituals has been completed in his absence. This had happened only due the arrogant, incompetent and ruthless attitude and deficiency in service of the opposite parties.
The petitioner further stated that while returning from the counter he noticed at the information screen wherein no information as regards gate closed or boarding not allowed were shown. To his surprise he observed families and other people were allowed to enter and had given boarding passes after he had been disallowed entry. He understood that those who are allowed entry and had given boarding passes are either VIPs or persons who had paid exorbitant rates to Air India. He had booked the ticket emergently for a specific purpose but due to the ruthless and negligent attitude of the opposite parties, he could not participate in the rituals which caused much mental agony to him. Even though he had a valid confirmed ticket, the concerned officials denied his entry to the flight and this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and thereby he suffered much mental pain, monetary loss and such other hardships and hence this petition seeking reliefs.
The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 filed a joint version stating that this petition is not maintainable either in law or facts and filed only with the intent to extract a substantial amount from them. The opposite parties admitted that the petitioner had booked ticket on flights AI 657 from Mumbai to Kozhikode on 15/03/2014 scheduled to depart at 10am. The reason for the booking was not known to them. The statement that there was a long and lengthy queue in front of the counter and when he reached the counter by 9.10 hrs., he was told by the staff of the 1st opposite party that the gate was closed and was asked to go back is denied as false. It is stated that, as per the norms related to operation of flight, all flights operating out of the Mumbai Airport have to roll out strictly on time. So the counters will be closed strictly at D.45 minutes ie. 45 minutes prior to departure and gates of those flights proceed through aerobridge are closed at D.20 minutes. This flight was scheduled to depart at 10am and so the gate was open till 9.15 am. If the petitioner had turned up at 9.10 am as alleged, then he would have been allowed to check-in and board the flight. But in this case the petitioner came to the check-in counter only after the closure of the gate and not before that as alleged.
The statements of the petitioner that due to the said act of the opposite parties he could not board the flight and so he was forced to buy another ticket by Jet Konnect 82-3523 for Rs.15,812/- and by the time he reached Kozhikode, the rituals was completed in his absence was denied as not known to them. All other allegations were denied by the opposite parties as false and baseless. It is stated that, the fact is that the petitioner had failed to show-up at the check-in counter on time and hence he could not board the flight and that was not due to any fault of the 1st opposite party’s officials. Their staff is well trained and capable of catering their customers and hence it is quite unfortunate to have made allegations against their staff. There is no deficiency in service and they are not liable to compensate the petitioner in any manner and hence prayed to dismiss the petition with cost to them.
The matters for determinations are:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Reliefs and costs if any?
Evidence consists of the affidavit filed by the next of kin of the petitioner Sri. Sandeep Rajagopal, Ext.s A1 to A6 and deposition of PW1.
Point No. 1: According to the petitioner, even though he is having a valid and confirmed ticket, he was denied entry to the flight AI 657 scheduled to depart from Mumbai to Kozhikode at 10 am on 15/03/2014 by the concerned officials of the 1st opposite party. The e-ticket issued to the petitioner by the opposite parties for travelling by Air India flight No. AI 657 was marked as Ext. A1. The opposite parties have no dispute with regard to the issuance of Ext. A1 ticket to the petitioner. According to them the petitioner had failed to show at the check-in counter on time and hence he could not board the flight and that was not due to any fault of the staff of Air India. Admittedly the departure time of the said flight was 10 am and the petitioner had reached the airport by 8.50am. In Ext. A1 ticket it is clearly printed that “Check-in starts 2 hours before scheduled departure and closes 45 minutes prior to the departure time. We recommend you report at the check-in counter at least 2 hours prior to departure time.” This endorsement in the ticket is a warning to the passengers that the authority is not responsible for the consequences due to the late coming of a passenger. In this case the petitioner himself had stated that he had reached the airport at 8.50 am. It is also stated that there was a long and lengthy queue in front of the counter and it was progressed slowly. If so, there is least possibility for the petitioner to reach the counter by 9.10 am as stated by him. Moreover the long and lengthy queue at that counter at 8.50 am ie. just 25 minutes prior to the closing of the counter means that most of the passengers who had booked tickets in that flight also were late, like the petitioner, otherwise there will not be such a long queue in that counter at that time. This is unbelievable.
Ext. A4 is the information given by the opposite parties to the petitioner under RTI application. But this information is with regard to the whereabouts as to flight No. AI 657 on 15/03/2015 and not with regard to the flight in dispute and so not relevant in this case. It is stated by the petitioner that the application given under RTI Act dated 13/09/2015, Ext. A5 asking for the whereabouts of the flight No. AI657 on 15/03/2014 where in the petitioner had booked ticket was not answered by the opposite parties which shows that details if given would be detrimental to them. But Ext. A5 is the original of the so called application. If the petitioner had submitted such an application before the opposite parties, how the original remains with him was not explained by him. Moreover the petitioner has not produced the postal receipt as evidence to show that he had sent Ext. A5 application (RTI) to the opposite party or A.D. card to show that the opposite party had received the same. So Ext. A5 cannot be considered as evidence. Sri. Sandeep Rajagopal, the next of kin of the petitioner was examined as PW1. In cross PW1 admitted that he was not with the petitioner on the day of his journey on 15/03/2014 and he knows only the matters which the petitioner had informed to him. So the evidence given by PW1 can be considered only as a hearsay evidence. Regarding the other allegations of the petitioner that he observed families and other people being allowed to enter and boarding passes were issued to them after returning him etc. no evidence was before us in this regard.
So considering the facts stated and evidence on record, we are of the view that the petitioner had failed to prove his case with cogent evidence. In the absence of evidence we cannot attribute any deficiency in service on the opposite parties as alleged by the petitioner. Point No. 1 found against the petitioner.
Point No. 2: In view of the finding in Point No. 1, this petition is liable to be dismissed and the petitioner is not entitled to get any reliefs sought for in the petition.
In the result this petition is dismissed. Parties will bear their cost.
Dated this the 16th day of February, 2019
Date of filing: 09/07/2014
SD/-PRESIDENT SD/-MEMBER
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
A1. Copy of e-ticket
A2. Copy of invoice
A3. Copy of e-ticket
A4. Reply received from opposite party under RTI
A5. Copy of letter sent to opposite party under RTI
A6. Copy of lawyer notice
Documents exhibited for the opposite party:
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant:
PW1. Sandeep Rajagopal (PAH)
Witness examined for the opposite party:
None
Sd/-President
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
