THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.

C.C. 50/2011

Dated this the 8^th day of January 2016

(Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB.                      :  President)

                                                                     Smt.Beena Joseph, M.A                             : Member

                                                                     Sri. Joseph Mathew, MA, LLB                  : Member

ORDER

Present: Rose Jose, president:

            This petition is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Petitioner’s case is that he is a business man having business in Doha and Qatar since 1969. For business interests, he used to travel to Doha once in every 6 months. As he has to visit Doha during the 3^rd week of August, attracted by the offers and promises made by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, he had planned to travel by the flight of the opposite parties. The opposite parties have advertised themselves as India’s first International Airlines that offers great value for money and efficient services with a mission to provide convenient connectivity in the short range routes at the most affordable prices to passengers. They also claimed that their ground services meet the standards expected by the customers and Air India Express gives its passengers all the essential on-board services needed for a comfortable flight and that free standardized meals and limited on-board entertainment facilities are also available.

            As such, he approached the 3^rd opposite party for finalizing the travel itinerary as he wanted a flight schedule that would not interfere with the Ramzan fasting and prayers. As a pious Muslim, he was particular that his travel or business article should not interfere with the observance of his religious duties and beliefs especially the fasting and prayers during Ramzan. The opposite party No. 3 had suggested the flight – IX471 of opposite party No. 1 & 2 scheduled to depart at 8.45 p.m. on 15/08/2010 from Kozhikode to Doha, a direct flight which would reach Doha well before the Subahi Niskaram (Morning Prayer). Accordingly he had taken tickets for the said flight (e-ticket IX13863499, PNR: IX07946444) on 23/07/2010.

            On 15/08/2010 he reached the Air port on time and after breaking the fast he got the boarding pass around 7.15 p.m. and after security check-up, he was asked to wait in the security hold area/sterile lounge for boarding. But even after 1 hour of the scheduled time of departure, there was no information, any announcement. All the passengers including the petitioner were kept starving without providing any food or refreshments and the flight was worsened by the fact that no food was otherwise available in the security hold area/sterile lounge where in the passengers were kept. As he had only broken the fast by taking light food in the evening was subject to much trauma and agony. They were not served any food even after offering of extra payment for that or allowed to go outside due to security reasons. Only around 1 a.m. the announcement for hearing was made and then the passengers objected to boarding without being provided any food. Then the 1^st opposite party assured that meat would be served on board, but contrary to their promise, no food except some pieces of banana chips and a small piece of cake and water were provided on broad.

            Apart from that, the flight which was scheduled to fly directly to Doha was re-routed to Baharin unilaterally without the knowledge or consent of the passengers. Finally the flight reached Doha around 7.30 a.m. and could not properly observe the Ramzan fast. As a pious Muslim, this hurt his religious feelings and physical disturbances. The petitioner stated that all the passengers were thoroughly exhausted, tired and starved. The petitioner alleged that the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 had purposely changed the flight schedule solely with profit motive and the augment business. This is unfair trade practice and also deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st, 2^nd opposite parties. This caused much financial loss, mental agony and other difficulties to him. Though he had sent lawyer notice to the opposite parties demanding Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the loss and injury sustained by him, they have not complied the demands.

            Hence this petition is filed to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the difficulties suffered due to the deficiency in service  on the part of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties and to give direction to the opposite parties to not to repeat such kind of unfair activities and also cost of those proceedings to the petitioner.

            The opposite parties 1 &2 filed combined version denying all the allegation and averments raised against them by the petitioner. Admittedly the petitioner had purchased an e-ticket of their flight No. IX 471 to travel from Kozhikode to Doha scheduled to depart on 15/08/2010 at 8.45 p.m. But it was stated that they were not made any assurance that the flight would reach Doha well before the Subahi Niskaram. They also denied the statement that they have offered free standard meals and limited on-board entertainment facilities to the passengers as false and contended that as a low cost carrier no entertainment is provided and in place of standard meals they are providing only snack boxes as refreshment.

            They further contended that the delay was duly informed to the passengers and heavy snacks were served in the security hold/sterile, although initially some passengers refused to permit the caterers to serve the food. There is no provision on-board to provide any additional meals even if requested. As per Government of India, security regulations, once the passengers have been cleared by all agencies (customs, immigration and security) and have been admitted in to the sterile area they were not permitted to leave the sterile area even if the flight is delayed. The re-routing of the flight was due to bad weather and it was informed to the passengers. The said flight was scheduled to arrive from Cochin at 19.55 hrs. and depart for Doha and Baharin 20.45 hrs. Since the flight left Cochin and went back to Cochin  due to bad weather at Kozhikode, all this delay and re-routing necessitated for arranging the work schedule of crew. All there was done with the sole purpose of assisting all the passengers and it was not made for any profit motive. Their action proved that they wished to assist everyone concerned at the best possible way in accordance with the situation prevalent at that time. They have replied to the lawyer notice stating true and correct facts. There is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of alleged and hence they are not liable to pay any amount to the petitioner as  compensation or likewise and he is not entitled for any reliefs sought for. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition with their cost.

            The 3^rd opposite party in his version contended that the petitioner himself had chosen the cheapest flight of Air India Express. He had sold a genuine Air ticket with which the petition was able to obtain boarding pass and board the plane. He had no role for the rest of the happening. There is no deficiency in service on his side and hence prayed to exempt him from the opposite party array and liability.

The points for determinations are:

1. Whether there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Reliefs and cost if any?

Evidence consists of the affidavit filed by the petitioner, Ext. A1 to A5 and deposition of PW1.

Point No. 1:  The petitioner averred that he had selected the said flight for travelling to Doha believing the promises made by the opposite parties. by travelling in this flight he can observe his religious rituals without any disruption during the holy Ramzan fasting season. As per the schedule he can start journey after breaking his fast at the evening and culminates at Doha before the morning prayer Subahi Niskaram at dawn, but because of the unexpected delay of the flight his religious rituals disrupted and as a pious Muslim this caused much mental pain and also emotional suffering for having not been able to properly observe the Ramzan fast. According to hi, this difficulties can be avoided if the opposite parties shows bit vigilance in scheduling the flight. Moreover after delivering the boarding pass the passengers including himself were kept at the security hold area/sterile lounge for hours without permission to move anywhere and they were trapped hours without providing any in formations or providing any food or refreshment.

            The opposite parties have admitted that the petitioner was also a passenger of the said flight IX471 departing from Kozhikode on 15/08/2010 at 8.45 p.m. It was also admitted that delay was caused to that flight and it was reached at Doha only at 7.30 a.m. next day. According to them delay was caused due to bad weather condition and they were forced to re-route the flight via. Baharin due the Flighty Duty Time Limitations (FDTL) for the operating crew as per DGCA regulations which permits the operating crew to make a maximum 3 landings.

            Everybody knows that the flight may delay or even cancel due to many unforeseen contingencies beyond the control of the operating authority. Moreover these arrangements were meant for the safety of the passengers and hence one cannot blame the authorities in this regard and the delay can be excused.

            Here the allegation is not regarding the delay, but the indifferent attitude of the opposite parties towards the passengers at that situation. As the opposite parties are operating many services to many places, they are well acquainted with such contingencies then the passengers and as such they should be much vigilant in handling such situations. Everybody expect quick, prompt and efficient alternative actions from them in reducing the sufferings of the passenger. They are duty bound to provide adequate help and assistance regarding service of food, accommodation, medical assistance of needed and other facilities to the passengers.

            Here the allegation is regarding the utter failure and indifferent attitude on the part of the opposite parties even in providing necessary food to the passengers. The passengers were not provided with necessary food except some snacks and water though they are willing to pay the extra charges and they were confined inside the air craft starved during the halt at Baharin. Though the opposite parties have denied all these allegation, it is seen stated by the opposite parties in their version that “heavy snacks were served in the security hold/sterile although initially some passengers refused th permit the caterers to serve the food”. This statement itself is an admission that something unpleasant happened there from the side of the opposite parties that provocated the passengers to do so. This situation supports the allegation of the petitioner that opposite parties have not provide any facilities even in the matter of serving food to them. Though the opposite parties contended that they have served heavy snacks but they haven’t mentioned the names of snacks. This also makes suspicious regarding the genuineness of the statement.

            The contentions of the opposite parties that in low cost carrier no meals were provided can be accepted only on normal situation. Here the situation is different, when the flight delayed and the passengers are not allowed to go anywhere from the lounge is the bounden duty of the operator to provide additional food or other facilities to passengers without delay. As a public sector enterprise, the opposite parties should have been much vigilant and prepared to handle such emergency situations especially during Ramzan seasons. This is nothing but utter negligence and deficiency in service on their part which nobody expects. The delay of the flight is excusable but the negligence and careless attitude towards the helpless passengers in such situations is not excusable. Moreover the passengers are always different in ages, religious and healthy conditions ie., some may have health problems, so utmost care and vigilance is needed in handling their problems. So also they should have been aware of the importance of special seasons to the passengers belongs to different religious. Here the petitioner is a pious Muslim and very vigilant and particular in observing their religious rituals especially during  holy Ramzan seasons and the disruption in their fast due to any reason will cause unfold sufferings, mental pain and hurt their religious feelings. The opposite parties could have given some special attention at least the petitioner considering his age and fasting during day time.

            Though the opposite parties cross examined the petitioner as PW1, nothing has been brought out to rebut the allegations raised by him.

            Considering all the facts stated above and perusal of the documents produced, we are of the opinion that the opposite parties are not responsible for the delay of the flight, their irresponsible and negligent attitude towards the passengers at that particular situation amounts to deficiency in service on the part of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. “In common cause V. Union of India and others 11(1996)CPJ 33(NC) the Hon’ble National Commission observed that Air India as well as its trade Union owes duty to passengers to ensure that the services are performed without deficiency, inconvenience and loss to passengers”  As the 3^rd opposite party has no involvement in the operation of flights, he is not liable to pay any compensation . Deficiency in service (Point No. 1) is found against the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.

Point No. 2: In view of the findings in Point No. 1, the petition is to be allowed and petitioner is entitled to get the reliefs. He had demanded Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for his mental pain and other loss and injuries suffered by him but he has not adduced any evidence to show his exact financial loss if any other than his mental agony and suffering related with, to calculate the quantum of loss sustained by him. So the demanded amount cannot be allowed. But no doubt what had happened would deficiency caused much difficulties and hardships to the petitioner, for which he deserves proper compensation and opposite parties are liable to pay the same. Hence we fix Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation which we feel just and proper.

            In the result, the following order is passed. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 are ordered to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) as compensation and Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) as cost of the proceedings to the petitioner. They are also directed not to repeat such kind of indifferent attitude towards the passengers in future.

            This order will be complied with, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Failing which they are liable to pay 9% interest for the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the next day onwards to the petitioner till payment.             

Dated this the 8^th day of January 2016.

Date of filing: 31/01/2011

SD/-MEMBER                       SD/-PRESIDENT                     SD/-  MEMBER

APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

A1. Copy of the passport of the complainant

A2. Copy of the e-ticket issued by the opposite party No. 3

A3. Copy of lawyer notice sent to the opposite parties with postal receipts and AD card

A4. Copy of reply received from opposite party No. 1

A5. Copy of reply received from opposite party No. 3

Documents exhibited for the opposite party:

PW1. Moosa Kedanhoth (Complainant)

Witness examined for the complainant:

 None

Witness examined for the opposite party:

 None

                                                                                                                        Sd/-President

//True copy//

(Forwarded/By Order) 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT