DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.267/2018
Sh. Puneet Gaur & ANR.,
R/o H.No. 320, Ground Floor,
Pocket 9, Sector 21, Rohini,
Delhi - 110085 ….Complainant
Versus
The Air India Limited,
113, Airlines House,
Gurudwara Rakabganj Road,
New Delhi - 110001
….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 14.09.2018
Date of Order : 19.01.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava
The Complainants was issued four confirmed tickets by OP-Air India to travel from Delhi to Rajkot. Complainants were scheduled to travel on 25.05.2018 along with their 2 minor children aged 7 years and 6 months respectively. The complainants were travelling as a family group of 11 persons. It is stated when the complainant reached Delhi Airport, staff of OP instead of issuing boarding pass for Rajkot flight were issued boarding pass for Ahmedabad flight. The remaining family members were issued boarding pass for Rajkot. The boarding time of flight to Ahmedabad was 7:00 PM, while the boarding time for Rajkot flight was 4:45 PM. Complainant has further stated that the ground staff of OP informed him that because of over booking of Rajkot flight, the complainants and their children will have to travel to Ahmedabad. It is further stated that since the flight landed at Ahmedabad late at night, the complainant had to wait for more than six hours to get a taxi for Rajkot consequently their hotel booking was also disturbed. It is claimed complainant had to pay Rs. 8000/-as taxi charge for travelling between Ahmedabad and Rajkot. The complainants have prayed for refund of their flight ticket cost from Delhi to Rajkot, taxi cost of Rs. 8000/- and Rs. 11,00,000/- with interest @ 18% towards mental pain, agony, and sufferings.
OP in its reply admit that complainants and their children were issued boarding pass for Ahmedabad instead of Rajkot. It is stated that in terms of DGCA Civil Aviation Requirements (hereinafter referred to as CAR) dated 06.08.2010 it is permissible and a regular practice of all airlines to overbook the flights beyond the aircraft’s seating capacity. It is stated overbooking and denied boarding does not fall in the category of deficiency of service. The case of the complainant falls in the category of “Denied boarding” in the CAR and in terms of which were offered travel to an alternative nearest available destination which was accepted by the complainant. It is also stated that complainants were given an option to travel to Rajkot on the next flight which was on the following day, however, they opted to travel to Ahmedabad instead hence, they are not entitled to file the present complaint. It is further stated that complainant had paid a sum of Rs 22,685/- for the tickets in terms of DGCA rules and that they are only entitled to a sum of Rs. 32,400/- towards compensation of denied boarding besides the travel from Delhi to Ahmedabad.
Complainant has filed rejoinder reiterating what had been stated in the complaint. Both the parties have filed evidence by way of affidavit.
OP has relied on clause 3.2 of CAR bearing file no. 23-15/2016-AED to buttress their argument permitting overbooking of flights and liability to pay compensation for denied boarding. The relevant extract of clause 3.2 is reproduced herein below
3.2 Denied Boarding
- 3.2.1 When the number of passengers, who have been given confirmed bookings for travel on the flight and who have reported for the flight well within the specified time ahead of the departure of the flight, are more than the number of seats available, an airline must first ask for volunteers to give up their seats so as to make seats available for other booked passengers to travel on the flight, in exchange of such benefits/facilities as the airline, at its own discretion, may wish to offer, provided airports concerned have dedicated check-in facilities/gate areas which make it practical for the airline to do so.
- 3.2.2 If the boarding is denied due to condition stated at Para 3.2.1 to passengers against their will, the airline shall not be liable for any compensation in case alternate flight is arranged that is scheduled to depart within one hour of the original schedule departure time of the initial reservation. Failing to do so, the airline shall compensate the passengers as per the following provisions:
- a) An amount equal to 200% of booked one-way basic fare plus airline fuel charge, subject to maximum of INR 10,000, in case airline arranges alternate flight that is scheduled to depart within the 24 hours of the booked scheduled departure.
- b) An amount equal to 400% of booked one-way basic fare plus airline fuel charge, subject to maximum of INR 20,000, in case airline arranges alternate flight that is scheduled to depart more than 24 hours of the booked scheduled departure.
- c) In case passenger does not opt for alternate flight, refund of full value of ticket and compensation equal to 400% of booked one-way basic fare plus airline fuel charge, subject to maximum of INR 20,000.
- 3.2.3 A passenger booked on connecting flights of the same airline or of the other airline, shall be compensated by the airline of the first flight for the first leg in accordance with the provisions of Para 3.2.2 of this CAR, when he has been delayed at the departure station on account of denied boarding, but has arrived at the final destination at least three hours later than the scheduled arrival time.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Joint Action Committee of Airlines Pilots' Association of India and Ors. v. The Director General of Civil Aviation and Ors: (2011) 5 SCC 435 considered the question as to whether the CAR is a statute or a subordinate legislation. The Court concluded that the CAR was only executive instructions, which has been issued for guidance of the duty holders/stakeholders and to implement the scheme of the act and do not have the force of law.
Delhi High Court in the matter of Pallav Mongia vs Union of India WP(C) 12006 of 2015 entertained similar issue, the Respondent therein is the OP before this Commission and the argument taken is same which is taken before this Commission. It was held
“A plain reading of paragraph 3.2 indicates that the DGCA has recognized that certain airlines follow the practice of overbooking flights; however, the same cannot be read to mean that the DGCA has permitted the airlines to do so. And, it certainly cannot mean that such practice has the sanction of law.”
The Hon’ble SCDRC Chandigarh in the matter of Kingfisher Airlines vs Lata Sikri, First appal no. 293 of 2011 in a similar matter held
“Admittedly, the OPs, overbooked the tickets and due to this reason, the complainant could not board the said flight, in spite of her confirmed ticket. Owing to this reason, the complainant had to reschedule her journey and had to go through a lot of mental agony and physical harassment. Although the appellant helped her to get a seat in the next flight in another Airlines but she did not accept that offer, as the said flight was to reach the destination in late hours. The journey of the complainant was delayed and she suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental harassment and mental agony, which tantamounted to deficiency in service”
XXXXX
“Therefore, in view of the inconvenience and harassment caused to the complainant due to the deficient service of the OPs, we are of the opinion, that certainly the complainant was entitled to compensation. Thus, the order of the District Forum is legal and valid. It does not suffer from any illegality”.
From the facts of this case it is evident that complainants despite having confirmed bookings were denied boarding for the reason of overbooking of the flight. OP acknowledges its lapse vide its letter dated 11th July 2018, addressed to the counsel of the complainant offered to deposit compensation of Rs. 32,400/- in the account of complainant. The calculation arrived at by OP is based on clause 3.2 of CAR. This position is reiterated in their written statement as well. The deficiency in service on the part of OP is thus established.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Joint Action Committee of Airlines Pilot’s Association and Delhi High Court in the matter of Pallav Mongia have held that CAR does not have force of law being an executive instruction therefore this Commission is of the view that liability of OP cannot be limited only to calculation given in clause 3.2.
The plea of OP that complainant having accepted the flight for Ahmedabad are estopped from claiming any damage is not sustainable because on account of actions of the OP, the complainant had limited options, being either travelling to Ahmedabad few hours later or to wait for another day to travel to Rajkot. Faced with this situation the complainant chose what deemed best in the circumstances, thus they cannot be bound by estoppel from claiming compensation thereafter. The complainants were faced with compelling circumstances and had to travel to Ahmedabad by a flight which boarded 2:15 hours later, had to wait till the morning to take a cab to Rajkot for travelling to attend a marriage and could not be part of the bigger group who travelled in the earlier flight. This, on its own is quite an inconvenience and harassment to the complainant which became much greater because they were travelling with minors-one of whom was barely 6 months old. Travelling with a toddler, in such circumstances must have been quite a troublesome experience for the complainant.
Considering the above, though the mental harassment cannot be quantified, this Commission is of the view that OP is liable to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards denial of boarding with confirmed tickets and mental harassment caused to them within three months from the date of passing of this order, failing which the OP would be liable to pay interest @ 6% pa on the amount of compensation till its realization.
File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties. Order be uploaded on the website.
