DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.424/2013
1. Shri Amit Kejriwal
S/o Sh. O. P. Kejriwal, Advocate
LP-11B, Pitampura,
Delhi-110034
2. Mrs. Manisha Kejriwal
W/o Sh. Ami Kejriwal
LP-11B, Pitampura,
Delhi-110034
3. Master Lohit Aksh Kejriwal (Minor)
represented by his father and natural guardian
Sh. Amit Kejriwal
LP-11B, Pitampura,
Delhi-110034
4. Shri Parveen Jhunjhunwala
S/o Shri Binod Kumar, Jhunjhunwala
X-105, Siddharth Apartments,
Maharana Pratap Enclave,
Pitampura, Delhi-110034
5. Mrs. Payal Jhunjhunwala
W/o Shri Parveen Jhunjhunwala
X-105, Siddharth Apartments,
Maharana Pratap Enclave,
Pitampura, Delhi-110034
6. Master Vaibhav Jhunjhunwala, (Minor),
Represented by his father and natural guardian
Shri Parveen Jhunjhunwala
X-105, Siddharth Apartments,
Maharana Pratap Enclave,
Pitampura, Delhi-110034
7. Shri Anuj Parasramka
S/o Sh. Binod Kumar Parasramka
691, Block-‘O’, New Alipore,
Kolkata-700 053
8. Mrs. Swati Parasramka
W/o Sh. Shri Anuj Parasramka
691, Block-‘O’, New Alipore,
Kolkata-700 053
9. Miss Prachy Parasramka
D/o Shri Binod Kumar Parasramka
691, Block-‘O’, New Alipore,
Kolkata-700 053 ….Complainants
Versus
1. The General Manager- Commercial (TS),
Air India Limited (Reservation)
Safdarjung Airport, Aurobindo Marg,
P.S. Lodhi Colony,
New Delhi-110053
2. Air India Limited
Represented by its Chairman Cum Managing Director
Air India Building,
22 Floor, Nariman Point,
Mumbai- 400 021
3. M/s Pelican Tours N Travels
25-A, MIG Flats, Shaikh Sarai,
Phase-I, New Delhi-110017 ….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 30.07.2013 Date of Order : 28.03.2017
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Case of the complainants is that the complainant No.1 alongwith complainants No.2 to 9 who are members of an extended family planned a holiday trip to Singapore and booked 6 air tickets from the OP No.2 for complainant No.1 to 6 from Delhi to Singapore for 19.10.12 through the OP No.3. The other three family members who travelled from Kolkata joined at Delhi and had tickets. They were allotted seat Nos.9A, 9B, 9C, 10A, 10B, 10C, 10D, 10E and 10F and requested to board the flight through gate No.20 of Terminal-3 at IGI Airport. The allotted seats nos. were mentioned on their respective boarding cards. But before boarding through gate No.20 the OP suddenly changed the boarding gate No.18 without any prior announcement or information causing much inconvenience and harassment to the complainants. On boarding the aircraft the allotted seats were manually changed and very rudely asked to sit on 9 different seats of the aircraft although they were travelling together and insisted to allow to be seated in continuous sequence but the crew members of OP No.2 were not cooperative and even ignored the fact that two minors were with them. On protest one of the crew members of the OP No.2 Mr. Tiwari even threatened to forcibly off board the complainants from the aircraft. It appears that the OP No.2 had changed the aircraft at the last moment which did not have the basic facility as per the international flight. It appears that the aircraft was meant for domestic flight and at the eleventh hour was converted to cater international passengers. There were insufficient blankets/pillows for the passengers and the aircraft was not even equipped with cotton buds and emergency medicines. The basic requirement of salt and peeper with food were denied even on demand on the pretext of non-availability of the same. The toilets of the aircraft were completely choked, emitting foul and obnoxious smell and were unusable and totally misfit to an international flight. The flight attendant of OP No.2 one Mr. Rohit Dogra was quite unwilling and dissuading to give them feedback form and only after persistent persuasion and demand he provided the form; after filling the form they submitted to the in-Flight staff of OP No.2 as expected but no response was forwarded till date. The approach of the in-Flight staff of the OP No.2 was quite uncourtious, impolite, non-cooperative, non-challant and dictatorial causing much annoyance to the complainants. It was a bad and sad experience for the complainants which ruined their entire charm of holidaying at the very first step. They were totally harassed, disappointed and disgusted at the deficient and low standard services of the OP. After returning from the journey the complainant No.1 wrote a letter on 27.10.12 to the OP No.1 and proforma party OP No.3 narrating the details. The said letter was sent through registered AD and duly delivered on 31.10.12 as confirmed by the postal authority. As no reply was received they sent a legal notice on 17.10.12 to the OPs but no reply was received. Hence, the services rendered by the OPs suffered from fault, imperfection, shortcomings and inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of services as per the Consumer Protection Act. Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complaint has been filed with the following prayers:-
- Direct the OPs to refund the Air Fare charged @ Rs.13,100.00 per passenger for Delhi – Singapore flight to all the 9 complainants, totaling to Rs.1,17,900.00m,
- Direct the OPs to pay a compensation of Rs.1,80,000.00 @ Rs.20,000.00 each to complainant(s) for the physical and mental strain, torture, tension, agony, anxiety and harassment caused to them,
- Direct the OPs to pay Rs.20,000.00 to the complainants as cost of litigations.
In the written statement OP No.1 & 2 have inter-alia stated that the complainants themselves admit that they did avail the services of the OPs for valuable consideration and thus the complainants have got absolutely no cause of action to file the present complaint against the OPs. It is false and fabricated that immediately before boarding the boarding gate No.20 was suddenly changed to boarding gate No.18 without prior announcement or information. As per log book records of the OPs, the operative craft was made available at gate No.18 for which engineering clearance was accorded at 2315 hrs for the flight scheduled to depart at 0005 hrs. and all the passengers including the complainants were accordingly duly informed; otherwise how could the complainants board if there was no prior announcement or information. It is an admitted fact by the complainants that they did duly board the aircraft from gate No.18 and duly availed the services of the OPs and reached their destination safe and sound. It is also a matter of record that the complainants never lodged any complaint whether at the time of the boarding or at or after landing at their destination or immediately on returning back at the airport against the OPs on any account whatsoever. It is denied that the staff of OP No.1 & 2 was impolite and rudely asked them to sit on different seats or that the crew member named Tiwari at all threatened to forcefully off board the Complainants from the aircraft. As a result of change of the aircraft, seat change action was required due to time constraints and to maintain on time departure of the flight and also to curtail the delay. The seats were changed manually at the time of the barding after 5 minutes after getting engineering clearance. It is submitted that the record reveals that the complainants occupied seat as 22B, 22D, 22E, 22F, 23B, 23C, 25C, 26A & 26B without an iota of protest or objection and that sincere endeavor was made to allot seats together to the families/groups as was done in this case. It shows that seats allotted to the complainants were near to each other and with respect to 6 of the passengers the seats were next to each other. Cabin crew alongwith commercial staff assisted the passengers to help family members to be seated together. There have absolutely been no misconduct, inefficiency, negligence or lackadaisical attitude on the part of the OP No.1 & 2. It is submitted that the rules permit the airlines to change the plan even at the last moment. The fact that the airline was within its right to change the plane is duly enshrined in the rules which was within the rules and regulations and are applicable to the complainants. It is false that the aircraft did not have basic facility to match standard of an international flight or that the aircraft was meant for domestic flights or at the eleventh hour converted to cater international passengers or that there were insufficient blankets/pillows for the passengers or that it was not equipped with cotton buds or emergency medicine. It is, however, stated that during the course of the flight, one of the toilet sink at the rear was choked and to avoid overflow, the door was locked from outside. However, when there were lot of passengers wanting to use the toilet, the door was unlocked with the instruction that tap should not be turned on. No complaint was at all made by the complainants at the time of barding or landing and it was only on 29.10.12 that in the fabricated letter dated 27.10.12 as an after-thought the word “toilet” used without at all alleging that it was emitting foul or obnoxious smell which shows that the complainants have got absolutely no sanctity for truth and are telling complete and absolute falsehood with dishonest and malafide motives. It is submitted that no wrongful loss has been caused to the complainants who admittedly duly and fully availed the services of the OPs. OPs have denied their liability under any “head.”
Complainants have filed a rejoinder and stated that the OPs unwittingly and inadvertently admitted that the aircraft was changed at the last moment i.e. 50 minutes prior to scheduled departure. OPs have also admitted “one of the toilet sink at the rear was choked and to avoid overflow door was locked from the outside.”
No specific order against OP No.3 has been passed by our predecessors though appearance on behalf of the OP No.3 had been put on 17.10.2013. Complainant had got 6 air tickets booked through OP No.3. However, No relief has been claimed against OP No.3. Therefore, we proceed further.
Complainant No.1 has filed his affidavit in evidence on behalf of the complainants. On the other hand, affidavit of Ms. Monika Thukral, Asstt. General Manager, Commercial has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP No.1& 2.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties. We have heard the arguments on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the file very carefully.
Annexure-4 relates to the feedback reply from the OP wherein it is mentioned “current status of the feedback is under process”. The complainants have filed the boarding passes as Annexure C1 wherein it is mentioned that the seat nos. were manually changed. The complainants vide letter dated 23.10.12 sent a legal notice to the OPs.
In the written statement OP No.1 & 2 have indirectly admitted that they had changed the aircraft and seats were changed manually and the new nos. were allotted to the complainants as above. The OPs have also admitted that during the course of the flight, one of the toilet sink at the rear was choked and to avoid overflow, the door was locked from outside but, however, when there were lot of passengers waiting to use the toilet the door was unlocked with the instruction that tap should not be turned on.
It is clear that the air ticket is the document between the passenger and the airline and it has to contain the specific terms & conditions. The main object of the airlines should be to look after facility and convenience of bonafide passengers and not to put the customers to harassment.
Now, it has become a matter of common knowledge and judicial notice of which fact can also be taken by this Forum that the air journey from Delhi to Singapore takes place in maximum of six hours. During this period, the travellers may frequently use the facility of toilet in the aircraft. However, we are of the considered opinion that a toilet can never be chocked within the short span period of six hours. Therefore, the probable cause for choking one toilet in the rear of the aircraft was that the said aircraft had been brought in re-use for undertaking air journey from Delhi to Singapore after it had completed its first journey from one destination to IGI Airport and for that reason the officials of OP No.1 & 2 could not clean the toilets at the IGI airport and the passengers including the complainants bound to take journey from Delhi to Singapore were made to sit in a aircraft which was infact not ready for its re-use. It was for that reason that the crew members of the aircraft had locked the rear toilet from outside and when there became a rush of passengers to use the toilet the door was unlocked with the instruction that the tap should not be turned on. If the passengers were not allowed to use the tap, there was bound to occur obnoxious and stinking smell in the toilet and ultimately in the whole aircraft. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the locking of the rear toilet in the aircraft was not sudden but had to be resorted to for the reasons stated hereinabove. Therefore, while undertaking the journey from Delhi to Singapore the OP No.1 & 2 did not keep in mind the convenience of the passengers on board. This certainly amounted to deficiency in service on their part.
In view of the above discussion, we hold that the OP No.1 & 2 were guilty in committing deficiency in service. However, since the complainants had undertaken the journey we cannot direct the OP No.1 & 2 to refund the fare to them.
Hence, we direct OP No.1 & 2 to pay Rs.15,000/- each to the complainants towards mental agony and compensation etc. Complaint stands disposed off accordingly.
The order shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order failing which OP No.1 & 2 shall become liable to pay interest @ Rs.6% per annum on the above said amount from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 28.03.17.
