Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/15/262

Rengathan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Air India Express - Opp.Party(s)

17 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

PRESENT

       SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN   : PRESIDENT

     SMT.PREETHA G NAIR: MEMBER

                                     SRI.VIJU.V.R                : MEMBER

 

CC.NO.262/2015 (Filed on : 15/06/2015)

ORDER DATED : 17/09/2022

 

COMPLAINANT

 

R.Renganathan,

TC.20/3006, Sastha Nagar,

Karamana, Trivandrum

 

(By Adv.K.L.Sree)

                                                VS

OPPOSITE PARTY

 

Air India Express,

Air India Building,

Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021

 

(By Adv.R.Jagadish kumar)

ORDER

 

SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN          : PRESIDENT

1.       This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and stood over to this date for consideration and this Commission passed the following order.

2.       This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. After admitting the complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. The opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the allegations raised by the complainant. The case of the complainant in short is that while returning from Mumbai to Thiruvananthapuram after his son’s marriage they have booked tickets for 11 passengers on 05/06/2015 at the scheduled departure of 12.50 PM by flight No.IX 205 from Mumbai to Thiruvananthapuram. All the 11 passengers were issued boarding passes five passengers were permitted to travel with their luggage. Complainant and other five relatives who were already issued boarding pass were asked to travel without luggage. Since the luggage contained cloths and other important things meant for the marriage reception to be held on 07/06/2015 at Thiruvananthapuram. So they could not leave the luggage and travel without luggage as directed by opposite party’s local manager on duty at Mumbai airport. In view of the urgency to travel to Thiruvanantapuram to organize the marriage reception on 07/06/2015, they asked the option of one or two passengers remaining and travelling in the later available flight to Thiruvananthapuram with the luggage as the luggage was within the permissible free limit for passengers. When this option was communicated to the local manager on duty, he did not allow them to travel and the boarding passes issued to them were torn and thrown into the waste bin. They requested him to make alternate arrangement for travelling to Thiruvananthapuram by the available next flight and the different in the cost of travel shall be paid by the complainant. But instead of helping the petitioner or find out a solution the manager went out the counter with angry. So we had to desperately face the unpleasant situation and were forced to take ticket in spice jet airlines to Cochin and then had to travel to Thiruvananthapuram by arranging Taxi 260 KMs to one way. So instead of reaching Thiruvananthapuram at 3 PM on 05/06/2015, the complainant and the family reached at Thiruvananthapuram at 12.30 AM on 06/06/2015. This resulted in a delay of around 10 hours. Hence alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party the complainant approached this commission for redressing his grievances. The main contention raised by the opposite party is that the complainant has alleged deficiency not only for the complainant but also for five other people who were supposed to travel along with him and compensation is also sought for them. The said five people are not parties in the consumer case and complainant has not been given any authorization to represent their case. Hence according to the opposite party this case is to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary parties and misjoinder of parties. The opposite party further alleged that the averments in the complaint are imaginary one and it is lacking bonafide. The opposite party admitted that the complainant and his family had purchased opposite party’s air ticket for 11 passengers to travel on 15^th June 2015 from Mumbai to Trivandrum departing at 12.50 hrs and arriving Thiruvananthapuram at 15 hrs. According to the opposite party the complainant and family members reported at airport only at 12.10. hrs which is after closing time of counters. According to the opposite parties even then as a gesture of good will and considering the number of passengers they were all accepted by checking them in for the flight and boarding cards were printed for all 11 passengers. At that point of time while updating baggage details, the group representative could tender bags of a few family members that were present at the counter and advised that balance members and bags were on the way. According to the opposite party by the time balance passengers arrived with their bags, it was 25 minutes before departure and was too late to reopen the counters to accept their baggage. According to the opposite party the claim made by the complainant is without having proper information of the checking procedure. Though the opposite party tried to accommodate by allowing them to carry their baggage and hand baggage and thus making all efforts to accommodate them on the flight. But the complainant and his family refused to accept this option and did not travel. Hence according to the opposite party, the opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant as there was no deficiency on the part of the opposite party. Hence the opposite party prayed for dismissal of this complaint.

3.       The evidence in this case consists of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A7 on the side of the complainant. The complainant was cross examined by the opposite party. The opposite party though filed written version and cross examination the complainant, failed to file any affidavit or documents on their behalf.

4.       Points for consideration

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed in the complaint.
3. Ordered as to cost.

5. Heard both sides. Perused records, affidavit and documents. Both complainant as well as opposite party filed argument notes. To substantiate the case of the complainant, the complainant himself sworn an affidavit as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked and produced. Ext.A1 is the wedding invitation of the complainant’s son. Ext.A2 is the air tickets issued by the opposite party. Ext.A3 is the travel ticket issued spice jet for the sam six persond with same luggage. Ext.A4 is boarding pass with luggage receipt issued by the opposite party. Ext.A5 is the taxi trip receipt. Ext.A6 is the letter issued by SP grant days hotel. Ext.A7 is the credit card statement issued by Dhanalaxmi bank. The complainant who was examined as PW1was cross examined in detail. The opposite party though seriously contested the matter by filing a written version and by cross examining the complainant, there is no oral or documentary evidence from the side of the opposite party to disprove the evidence adduced by the complainant. Exts.A1& A2 marked on behalf of the complainant proves the date of marriage and reception. The case of the complainant is that the complainant and other five passengers did not travel to Trivandrum on the scheduled flight of opposite party because of the objection raised by the opposite party with regard to the alleged excess weight of the luggage. According to the complainant as they were not allowed to travel in the flight of opposite party, they were forced to take a ticket to Kochi and from there they have to arrange the taxi to Thiruvananthapuram. Ext.A5 is the prepaid taxi receipt issued from Kochin International Airport Taxi Operators Co-operative Society. In cross examination suggestion was due to the complainant / PW1 that Ext.A5 does not contain PW’s name or phone number in the place of destination. On perusal of Ext.A5 it is seen that it contains name of PW1 and destination as Trivandrum and date of travel from Kochi Airport as on 05/06/2015 at 6:11:37 P.M. So the allegation of the opposite party is that Ext.A5 cannot linked with this complaint is not acceptable. Ext.A5 shows that PW1 has travelled from Kochi to Trivandrum by being KL 63 B 2507 taxi by paying Rs.7,130/- towards taxi fare. Ext.A2 air ticket proves that 11 passengers booked the ticket from Mumbai to Trivandrum in the opposite party’s flight. Ext.A3 proves that six passengers including the complainant booked ticket in spice jet on 05/06/2015 from Mumbai  to Kochi the booking date and travel date in Ext.A3 will kept show that the ticket was booked on the date of travel. This also probablises the case of the complainant that they were forced to make alternative arrangements by flying to Kochi as there was no flight to Trivandrum available at that time. Ext.A4 which is the boarding pass with luggage seats show that only five passengers travelled in opposite party’s flight with luggage. Ext.A5 prepaid tax receipt shows that they have travelled from Kochi to Trivandrum after 6 PM on 05/06/2015. Admittedly the scheduled arrival time of the flight of the opposite party at Trivandrum is at 3.p.m. Ext.A6 is a letter issued by the hotel at Trivandrum where the arrangements for reception of the complainant’s son’s marriage was scheduled to be held. Ext.A7 account statement shows that the payment for air ticket for all the 11 passengers, to the opposite party was made together from the said account maintained by the complainant.

 6. Though serious contentions were raised by the opposite party in their written version, it was not supported by any oral or documentary evidence from the side of the opposite party. Mere pleading of denial of the averments in the complaint by the opposite party is not sufficient to discredit the claim put forward by the complainant. By giving oral evidence as PW1 and facing cross examination and by marking Exts.A1 to A7, we find that the complainant has succeeded in establishing the allegations raised against the opposite party. There is no contra evidence from the side of the opposite party to discredit the evidence adduced by the complainant. In the absence of any contra evidence from the side of the opposite party, we accept the evidence adduced by the complainant. From the available evidence before this commission, we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party which resulted in mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. As the mental agony and financial loss to the complainant was caused due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, we find that the opposite party is liable to compensate the loss sustained by the complainant. In view of the above discussions and in the absence of any contra evidence from the side of the opposite party to discredit the evidence of the complainant, we find that this is a fit case to be allowed in favour of the complainant.

               In the result, complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation along with Rs.2500/- as cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Failing which amount except cost shall carry an interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of realization / remittance.

              A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

                 Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this 17^th September 2022.

 

                                                                                           Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN: PRESIDENT

                                                                                              Sd/-    

PREETHA G NAIR: MEMBER

                                                                                                 Sd/-

                                            VIJU.V.R     : MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

Be/

APPENDIX

CC.NO.262/2015

List of witness for the complainant

PW1                      - R.Renganathan

Exhibits for the complainant

Ext.A1         - copy of wedding invitation of the complainant’s son.

Ext.P2         - copy of the air tickets issued by the opposite party.

Ext.P3         - copy of the travel ticket issued spice jet for the sam six persond  

                    with same luggage.

 Ext.P4        - copy of boarding pass with luggage receipt issued by the opposite  party. Ext.P5 is the taxi trip receipt.

Ext.P6         -  letter issued by SP grant days hotel.

 Ext.P7        - credit card statement issued by Dhanalaxmi bank.

List of witness for the opposite party – NIL

List of Exhibits for the opposite party – NIL

Court Exhibit                                    - NIL

 

 

                                                                                       Sd/-

                                                                               PRESIDENT