DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, CAMP COURT AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/18/34

Date of Institution : 11.01.2018/29.11.2021

Date of Decision : 05.09.2022

1. Ashok Kumar Puri S/o Sh. Sat Pal Puri aged 64 years.

2. Savitri Devi W/o Sh. Ashok Kumar aged 62 years.

3. Master Krishiv Puri S/o Sh. Kapil Puri minor through his grandmother Savitri Devi aged 6 years. 

All residents of H. No. 117/13, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Jail Road, Gurdaspur.    …Complainants

Versus

1. Air India Ltd., Office at Sri Guru Ram Dass Jee, International Airport, Amritsar, Tehsil and District Amritsar through its Manager.

2. Air India Limited, Office at Indira Gandhi International Airport, Delhi through its Manager.

3. Cathey Pacific Airways office at Indira Gandhi International Airport, Delhi through its Authorized Signatory.

…Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act

Present: Sh. Tapesh Bhalla Adv counsel for complainants.

Sh. Bikramjit Singh Arri Adv counsel for opposite parties No. 1 and 2.

Sh. Aman Prashar Adv counsel for opposite party No. 3.

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):

    The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against Air India Limited, Amritsar and others. (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainants contacted the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 for verifying their flight for Melbourne on 10.6.2017 who told that flight which will be taken off at 19.00 hours from Amritsar to Delhi and reached Delhi at 20.10 will be suitable for the complainants as complainants easily can get the next flight from Delhi to Hongkong and Melbourne as the flight schedule of next flight to be taken off at 1.10 hours. On the assurance of the opposite parties that the flight No. A1-115 will be suitable for the complainants which will departure timely for taking the next flight from Delhi. The complainants purchased tickets for the flight No. A1-115 of Air India from Amritsar to Delhi for 10.6.2017 and also purchased tickets from Delhi to Melbourne for Cathey Pacific Airways 694 Delhi to Hongkong and Hongkong to Melbourne flight No. CX-163 and schedule to be taken off at 1.10 hours. 

3. It is further alleged that on 10.6.2017 the complainants reached at the office of opposite party No. 1 timely for taking their flight No. A1-115 from Amritsar to Delhi and after completing all the formalities the opposite party No. 1 order to the complainant alongwith other passengers to sit in the waiting hall for taking their flight. After one hour the opposite party No. 1 announced that the flight No. A1-115 is late and will departure after one hour. Due to mistake of opposite party No. 1 the flight No. A1-115 did not departure timely for the destination of Delhi from where the complainants had to take the next flight for the next destination i.e. Delhi to Hongkong and Hongkong to Melbourne. 

4. It is further alleged that the flight No. A1-115 arrived at Delhi at 12.15 AM on 11.6.2017 and the complainants approached the staff of opposite party No. 3 as the counter of opposite party No. 2 was still open but they refused to issue the boarding pass to the complainants for taking their next flight, with the request that the flight No. A1-115 is arrived late in which there is no fault of the complainants but of no use. It is further submitted that flight No. CX-694 from Delhi to Hongkong was late by 00.35 minutes from schedule of 1.10 hours and if the staff of the opposite party No. 2 accepted the request of the complainant and issue them boarding pass for taking their flight the complainants could take their flight No. CX-694 and reached their destination timely but to negligence of the opposite parties the complainants suffered great loss and mental tension which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Due to missing of flight complainants had to stay at a local hotel at Delhi and they had to pay Rs. 95,000/- to the opposite party No. 3 for bought new tickets. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite parties may be directed to release the amount of 1895 AUD Rs. 95,000/- to the complainants for bought new tickets for next destination i.e. Delhi to Hongkong and Hongkong to Melbourne for 11.6.2017. 

2) To pay Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses.  

3) Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled. 

5. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable against the answering opposite parties. There is no deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the answering opposite parties. No cause of action has arisen to the complainants to file the present complaint and they are estopped by their act and conduct from filing this complaint. The complainants have concealed material facts from this Forum and complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of necessary parties. 

6. On merits, it is submitted that the complainants purchased the tickets only of the domestic traveling and not of international traveling and it was separate tickets. Same were purchased by them from Gurkhas Travels, Melbourne for their travel from Amritsar to Delhi. The answering opposite parties are not aware about the other tickets purchased by the complainants from Delhi to Melbourne from Cathey Pacific Airways from Hongkong to Melbourne nor they had ever informed about this to the answering opposite parties. The complainants purchased the tickets as per their own choice and suitability as the question of giving any assurance to them by the answering opposite parties does not arise. The same were single tickets and not connected tickets. Further, as per log book entry dated 10.6.2017 of National Aviation Company of India Limited, Commercial Department, that the flight No. A106 Delhi to Amritsar was expected to arrive at 18.50 hours but according to Chain Singh from MET Office, there was no possibility for landing flight A1-106 due to heavy dust stone and this information was also confirmed by Mr. Amrit from ATC and he said that there was no possibility right now and Capt. Taking less fuel at Delhi or if it take more time in Air, so it will be diverted. It was a natural act of God. This arrival flight No. A1-106 from Delhi to Amritsar had to go back to Delhi with flight No. A1-115 but due to bad weather condition at Amritsar the same flight was flown back to Delhi on 18.50 hours and this information was given by Amritsar Air Traffic Control and conveyed to the passengers through mike. There was no mistake or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Rest of the allegations of the complaint are denied by the answering opposite parties. However, as far as the certificate dated 11.6.2017 issued by the answering opposite party No. 1 is concerned it was issued only on the request of the complainants who stated that on the basis of such certificate they will be compensated by the opposite party No. 3 and reason for late flight was duly mentioned in it. Lastly, the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint against the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 with costs.

7. The opposite party No. 3 also filed written reply by taking preliminary objections on the grounds that the present complaint is not maintainable. It is not specifically pleaded as to at what time the flight of Air India landed except to the fact there is an elusive averment that flight No. A1-115 arrived at Delhi at 12.15 AM. The complainants not proved on the file that they reached the counter of the answering opposite party 60 minutes prior to the departure. It is also not mentioned at what time the passengers reached check in counter of the answering opposite party. It is usual with international flights that the passengers have to report at least two or three hours prior to the scheduled time of the flight. The complainants themselves were negligent and did not report well within time so the present complaint is not maintainable against the answering opposite party. Further, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present complaint as flight was from Delhi and answering opposite party does not have its branch office in Amritsar. No cause of action arose in Amritsar. Further, complainants are residents of Gurdaspur and tickets were booked from some agent at Mumbai, so this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. The complainants have concealed the relevant facts of the case and approached the Forum with unclean hands. The complaint has been filed merely to harass and pressurize the opposite party and present complaint is abuse of the process of law. 

8. On merits, it is admitted that the complainants are residents of Gurdaspur. It is also admitted that the complainants had booked air tickets from Delhi to Hongkong and Hongkong to Melbourne. The answering opposite party has no knowledge about the conversation held between the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and complainants. It is also admitted that the complainants had purchased air tickets through a travel agent i.e. CVFR Global Mumbai and ticketed by Cox and kings India Private Limited from Delhi to Hongkong and onward journey from Hongkong to Melbourne. There is no relevancy between the flight booked for Amritsar to Delhi and Delhi to Melbourne.  The complainants booked domestic flight ticket from Amritsar to Delhi as per their choice and convenience for which no assurance were ever given by the answering opposite party. It is also admitted that the answering opposite party refused to issue the boarding passed since the complainants reported late at the counter of the answering opposite party. It was the duty of the complainants to reach 60 minutes prior to departure time of the scheduled flight. It is admitted that the flight CX694 on 11.6.2017 from Delhi to Hongkong was scheduled on 01.10 AM. There was no change in the time schedule of the flight and departure time remained the same. It is denied that the scheduled flight was delayed by 35 minutes. The flight took off 0010 minutes late due to ATC clearance and IAK  i.e. Air traffic Flow Management Restriction used only after the last aircraft external door is closed. The said flight took off 10 minutes late i.e. 01.20 AM. The failure of the passenger in reporting to the Airline counter as per scheduled time is a fault of the passenger only and on one else. The complainants admitted that they had reached late which resulted in refusal of issuance of boarding passes. Even if the Air India Flight landed at 12.15 AM on 10.6.2017 it is not possible for any of the passenger to de-board and to be present at Check-in-counter of CX before 12.30 AM. The Delhi Airport has separate terminals/gates for domestic and international flights. The complainants themselves negligent while booking the tickets for their domestic and international travel. It is the liability of the passenger to be present at Check-in-counter as per the deadline. It is incorrect that the complainants had to buy new tickets. The complainant did not purchase new tickets rather old tickets were re-issued by the travel agent by paying fare and tax difference which was due to wrongs of the complainants. Rest of the allegations in the complaint are denied by the opposite party No. 3 and lastly prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint qua the answering opposite party No. 3 with costs. 

9. To prove their case the complainants tendered in evidence affidavit of Ashok Kumar Ex.CW-1/A, affidavit of Savitri Devi Ex.CW-2/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-14 and closed their evidence.

10. To rebut the case of the complainants the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Ashok Singh Station Master Ex.OP-1.2/1, copy of log book entry dated 10.6.2017 Ex.OP-1.2/2 and Ex.OP-1.2/3, copy of aviation weather centre report Ex.OP-1.2/4 and closed the evidence. The opposite party No. 3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Mark Sutch Regional General Manager Ex.OP-3/1, copy of General Condition of carrier for passengers and baggage Ex.OP-3/2 and evidence of the opposite party No. 3 was closed by order dated 30.5.2019. 

11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record on the file. Written arguments also filed by all the parties. 

12. The complainant alleged in the complaint that the  complainants purchased the tickets of the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 from Amritsar to Delhi and said flight will be taken of at 19.00 hours from Amritsar to Delhi and reached Delhi at 20.10 hours. The complainant further alleged that the complainants purchased the tickets of opposite party No. 3 for Delhi to Melbourne i.e. Delhi to Hongkong and Hongkong to Melbourne and the departure time of the said flght from Delhi was at 1.10 hours. The complainant alleged that the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 assured that the flight from Amritsar to Delhi will be suitable for the complainants and the complainants can easily get the next flight from Delhi to Hongkong and Hongkong to Melbourne. The complainant alleged that on 10.6.2017 the flight No. A1-115 from Amritsar to Delhi did not departure timely from where the complainants had to take the next flight for the next destination i.e. Delhi to Hongkong and Hongkong to Melbourne but the said flight arrived at Delhi at 12.15 AM on 11.6.2017 and the complainants approached the staff of opposite party No. 3 for taking their next flight, with the request that the flight No. A1-115 is arrived late but of no use. It is further alleged that flight No. CX-694 from Delhi to Hongkong was late by 00.35 minutes from schedule of 1.10 hours and if the staff of the opposite party No. 3 accepted the request of the complainant and issue them boarding pass for taking their flight the complainants could take their flight No. CX-694 and reached their destination timely. The complainant alleged that due to negligence of the opposite parties the complainants suffered great loss and mental tension which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. The complainants further alleged that the complainants had to stay at a local hotel at Delhi and they had to pay Rs. 95,000/- to the opposite party No. 3 for bought new tickets. 

13. On the other hand the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 have taken objections that the complaint is not maintainable against the opposite parties No. 1 and 2. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 submitted that the complainants purchased the tickets only of the domestic traveling and not of international traveling and it was separate tickets. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 further alleged that tickets from Amritsar to Delhi were purchased by the complainants from Gurkhas Travels, Melbourne. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 are not aware about the other tickets purchased by the complainants from Delhi to Melbourne from opposite party No. 3. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 further alleged that the complainants purchased the tickets as per their own choice and suitability and the question of giving any assurance to them by the answering opposite parties does not arise at all. The opposite parties further alleged that due to bad weather condition the flight was delayed on that date and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties No. 1 and 2. 

14. The opposite party No. 3 filed separate written version and taken objections that the present complaint is not maintainable. The opposite party No. 3 alleged that the complainant failed to prove that they reached the counter of the answering opposite party 60 minutes prior to the departure. The opposite party No. 3 further alleged that  it is usual with international flights that the passengers have to report at least two or three hours prior to the scheduled time of the flight. The complainants themselves were negligent and did not report well within time so the present complaint is not maintainable. The opposite party No. 3 has also taken preliminary objection of territorial jurisdiction. On merits, the opposite party No. 3 submitted that there is no relevancy between the flight to Amritsar to Delhi and Delhi to Melbourne. The complainants booked domestic flight from Amritsar to Delhi as per their choice and convenience for which no assurance were ever given by the answering opposite party. The opposite party No. 3 denied that the  scheduled flight was delayed by 35 minutes. The opposite party No. 3 alleged that the flight took off 00.10 minutes late due to ATC clearance and IAK  i.e. Air traffic Flow Management Restriction used only after the last aircraft external door is closed. It is the liability of the passenger to be present at Check-in-counter as per the deadline. The opposite party No. 3 further denied that the complainants had to buy new tickets. The complainant did not purchase new tickets rather old tickets were re-issued by the travel agent by paying fare and tax difference which was due to wrongs of the complainants. 

15. The complainants have tendered the certain documents in their evidence from which it is proved that the flight of opposite parties No. 1 and 2 from Amritsar to Delhi was delayed. Due to that they were unable to take the flight from Delhi to Hongkong and Hongkong to Melbourne of opposite party No. 3. The complainants have not produced any evidence regarding the expenses of Rs. 95,000/- as alleged in the complaint by them.

16. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 tendered certain documents in their evidence and produced document of National Aviation Company of India Limited, Commercial Department Ex.OP-1.2/2 to Ex.OP-1.2/4 vide which it established that the flight of opposite parties No. 1 and 2 was delayed due to bad weather. 

17. On the other hand the opposite party No. 3 has specifically mentioned in their written version that the complainants did not purchase new tickets rather old tickets were re-issued by travel agent by paying fare and tax difference charges which was due to the wrongs of the complainants. The complainants did not rebut this version of the opposite party No. 3 and also not produced any evidence to prove their version. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 specifically mentioned in the written version that the complainants booked the flight of opposite parties No. 1 and 2 from the agent situated at Melbourne from which it established that there is no direct contact between the complainants and the opposite parties No. 1 and 2. Therefore, the question of assurance does not arise at all. The flight from Amritsar to Delhi was delayed due to bad weather and same is beyond control of the opposite parties No. 1 and 2. On the other hand, the opposite party No. 3 specifically mentioned that as per terms and conditions in the international flights passengers have to reach at counter before 2 to 3 hours for taking the flight but the complainants did not reach within the prescribed time, therefore there is no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No. 3. Moreover, complainants also failed to prove that they have spent Rs. 95,000/- for buying the new tickets.

18. The opposite party No. 3 has taken the specific objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum as the alleged tickets from Delhi to Hongkong and Hongkong to Melbourne were purchased through the Agent of Mumbai and the opposite party No. 3 further alleged that they have no concern with the tickets from Amritsar to Delhi and they have no knowledge regarding the said tickets. The opposite party No. 3 argued that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. On the perusal of the file it established that the flight from Amritsar to Delhi and Delhi to Melbourne were not connected flights and the tickets from Delhi to Melbourne were booked from Agent at Mumbai and this fact was not denied by the complainants, therefore, this Forum now Commission also comes to the conclusion that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction against the opposite party No. 3. 

19. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and same is accordingly dismissed. However, no  order as to costs or compensation. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        5th Day of September 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President

              

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member