cccccPBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 30th day of January 2013
Filed on : 15-07-2011
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 373/2011
Between
Raffi Mather, : Complainant
S/o. K.M.I Mather, Director, (By Adv. V.J. James,
Mather Projects Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 237, MAS Hotel,
Rajaji road, Cochin-682 035 Town North, Railway
permanently res. at 14-A, Station Road, Cochin-682 018)
IVORY HEIGHTS,
Panambilly Nagar,
Cochin-682 036.
And
1. Air India Ltd., rep. by its : Opposite parties
Chairman Cum Managing (By Adv. Nithin George,
Director, Air India Ltd., M/s. Menon & Pai,
Air India House, Advocates, I.S. Press
Mumbai-400 021. Road, Ernakulam,
Kochi-682 018)
2. The Sr. manager,
Sales & Marketing,
Air India, Collis Estate,
M.G. Road, Ernakulam,
Cochin-682 016.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant booked a ticket from Delhi to Cochin via Mumbai in flight No. IC 602 of the opposite parties to travel on 17-12-2010. On the date of journey the Delhi Air Port issued the complainant two boarding passes one up to Mumbai and the other from Mumbai to Kochi. On alighting at Mumbai the complainant went to the counter of the opposite parties and got confirmed his booking and obtained boarding pass in Flight No. A1 690 dated 18-12-2010. The complainant boarded the flight occupied the seat complying with all the formalities. At that juncture the Commercial Manager of the opposite parties insisted that the complainant should disembark and he was forcefully sent out of the aircraft though Delhi Office had issued boarding pass in the sector and was later confirmed by the staff of the opposite parties at Mumbai. After much persuasion he got a seat in flight No. IC 161 on 18-12-2010, however he was delayed by 18 hours due to the mismanagement and misbehavior of the opposite parties. The complainant caused a letter to the opposite parties demanding Rupees ten lakhs by way of compensation. But there was no response. The complainant did not receive the luggage in Cochin containing valuable business documents and valuables costing Rs. 1,53,000/-. Against the said claim the opposite parties offered Rs. 7,200/- calculated on the basis of the weight of the baggage. Due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties the complainant had to suffer humiliation inconveniences and mental agony at Mumbai Airport, He is entitled to get a total compensation of Rs. 11,53,000/- together with costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.
2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows.
The complainant was checked in at Delhi Airport up to Cochin manually. The complainant on arrival at Mumbai Air port did not present his manual boarding card issued at Delhi Airport at the check in order to get his system generated boarding card. Thereafter he was declared a ‘no show passenger’. The complainant without properly checking in with the boarding pass passed through green channel without properly verifying whether his was system generated boarding card. So he had to be off loaded from the flight. Without looking into the issue of the wrong boarding issued to him a seat in the next flight to Cochin was arranged. The officers were strictly acting in course of their duty. The luggage of the complainant was lost some where in transit. But the complainant had not declared the value of the goods being carried. The complainant is entitled only to a value of Rs. 7,200/- based on the weight of the baggage. The opposite parties had offered to compensate the complainant with a return economy ticket to anywhere in opposite party’s net work. But the complainant’s claim was too tall. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complaint is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1, Exts. A1 to A19 were marked. The witness for the opposite parties was examined as DW1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get a total
compensation of Rs. 11,53,000/- from the opposite parties?
ii. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay costs of the
proceedings to the complainant?
5. Point No. i. Admittedly the complainant booked a ticket bearing seat No. 14A to travel on 17-12-2010 from Delhi to Cochin via Mumbai by Flight No. 1C 602. On the date of journey the Delhi Air Port issued two boarding passes to the complainant, one from Delhi to Mumbai and the other from Mumbai to Cochin. On alighting at Mumbai after completing the required formalities the complainant boarded the flight and occupied the allotted seat bearing No. 22A. The unfortunate consequences incepted from that point.
6. According to the opposite party the complainant did not submit the boarding pass at the boarding counter at Mumbai Air Port for confirmation. It is stated that since he was possessing the boarding pass issued from Delhi he managed to board the flight, at Mumbai, Literally the complainant was forcefully and rather technically removed from the air craft though he was possessing valid ticket and boarding pass. We can not accept the flimsy reason put forward by the opposite parties to oust the complainant from the flight especially since he was in possession of a valid boarding pass issued by the opposite parties themselves. DW1 the instance from the opposite parties admitted that the fact of reconfirmation of the boarding pass at Mumbai air port has not been stated anywhere. The opposite party failed to produce any document in this Forum to prove that they have communicated the said fact to the complainant or any of the passengers. It is very pertinent to note that what prompted the opposite parties to arrange the journey of the complainant in another flight if it was not for their own negligence. Their offer for a complimentary ticket to any where in their net work substantiates their guilt of conscience. The denial of journey to the complainant in spite of valid ticket and boarding pass amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Due to denial l of boarding pass the complaint had to wait at Mumbai Air Port for 18 hours for the next flight arranged by the opposite parties. Naturally the complainant who is a business magnet had to suffer lot of inconveniences, financial loss and mental agony for no fault of his. However there is nothing before us to quantify the loss though it is admissible that there has been such a result prima-facie.
7. The compensation talked in Section 14 of the Act is not only confined to the award of monetary compensation for loss and / or injury suffered by a consumer but it has many other elements as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh (2004) 5 SCC 65. The Hon’ble Appex Court held as under:
“The word compensation is again of very wide connotation. It has been defined in the Act. According to dictionary it means ‘compensating or being compensated’. In legal sense it may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to physical mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. Therefore, when the Commission has been vested with the jurisdiction to award value of goods or service and compensation it has to be construed widely enabling the commission to determine compensation for any loss or damage suffered by a consumer which in law is otherwise included in wide meaning of compensation. The provision in ;our opinion enables a consumer to claim and empowers the Commission to redress any injustice done to him. The Commission or the Forum in the Act is thus entitled to award not only value of the goods or services but also compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him”. We feel that it would meet the end of justice if an award of Rs. 1 lakh towards compensation is ordered.
8. Adding fuel to fire the complainant did not get his luggage at Cochin airport for no reasons stated. According to the complainant the bag contains articles worth Rs. 1,53,000/-. Admittedly he had not disclosed the price of the articles in the baggage at the Airport Delhi. In Ext. A14 letter the opposite parties offered to settle the baggage claim as per Domestic Carriage of Passengers and Baggage and Regulation. As per the claim the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 450/- per k.g. for 16 kg. the weight of the complainant’s baggage especially in view of the decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Bhagwant Singh
Aroroa V. KLM Royal Dutch Air Lines Ltd II (2005) CPJ 197. The complainant is entitled to get the amount with interest till realization.
9. During the proceedings the opposite parties had made an offer to the complainant to travel to avail himself of their facilities offered by them as a gesture on their part of good will with a complimentary ticket. The complainant is free to avail the same hereafter.
10. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows:
i. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay Rupees One lakh towards compensation to the complainant.
ii. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally also pay Rs. 7,200/- to the complainant with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of journey till realization towards the loss of luggage.
iii. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally provide ticket to the complainant as offered by the opposite parties at the option of the complainant.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th day of January 2013.
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Copy of property irregularity report
A2 : Copy of boarding pass
A3 : Copy of boarding pass
A4 : Copy of boarding pass
A5 : Copies of letter dt.09-03-2011
A6 : copies of postal receipts
A7 : Copy of letter
dt. 16th day of March 2011
A8 : Copy of A.D. card
A 9 : Copy of A.D. card
A10 : Copy of A.D. card
A11 : Copy of letter dt. 28-03-2011
A12 : copy of postal receipt
A13 : Copt of letter dt. 20-04-2011
A14 : Copy of letter dt. 20-04-2011 A15 : Copy of letter dt. 30-04-2011
A16 : Copies of postal receipts
A17 : Copy of notice dt. 17-06-2011
A18 : Copies of postal receipts
A19 : Copy of letter dt. 30-11-2011
Opposite party’s Exhibits : : Nil
Depositions:
PW1 : Copy of Mohammed Rafi Mathai
DW1 : S. Gopakumar
