(Per Shri S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member)
(1) These two appeals since in the nature of cross appeals are disposed off by this common order. These appeals arise out of impugned order dated 24/02/2004 passed in Consumer complaint No. 381/2000, Kumar Subramaniam anr. Vs. Air India Ltd. & ors., passed by South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Mumbai.
(2) Undisputed facts are that the complainant, Kumar Subramaniam and his wife Shobha Kumar Subramaniam (hereinafter referred as ‘complainants’) booked two return air tickets from Air India Ltd. (hereinafter referred as ‘Air Lines’) through travel agent, Blue Star Travel Services. Both tickets were confirmed for traveling from Mumbai to Singapore and return journey from Singapore to Mumbai. Accordingly, the complainants to visit Singapore boarded their airplane on 31/05/2000. However, when they reached the Singapore Air Port on 09/06/2000 for return journey as per their confirmed ticket, Air India Ltd. refused to give boarding pass and also refused to refund the money for unconsumed/denied travel from Singapore to Mumbai. Officers of Air India at Singapore airport did not assure them for return journey ticket by anyone of the flights during the period of next 8 days. Under the circumstances, facing the mess, they had to manage to travel at their own from Singapore to Mumbai and that too arranging the necessary finance taking loan from a relative. Having faced inconvenience, the complainants alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Air India Ltd. and filed the consumer complaint against the airlines and travel agent. The forum partly allowed the consumer complaint and awarded the compensation of `73,581/- and further compensation of `5,000/- to the complainants payable by the airline along with interest @9% p.a. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the airline preferred appeal No.A/04/789 while since the complainants were not satisfied with the compensation awarded, preferred appeal No.A/04/597.
(3) Defence of the airlines was that they always as per the international aviation practice, ensured excess booking and days for the passengers to get confirmed their return journey 72 hours prior to the scheduled departure of the aircraft. Under the circumstances, they cannot be held responsible for alleged deficiency in service.
(4) Heard both the parties. The travel agency neither challenged the order nor participated in the appeal proceeding.
(5) In the instance case, the airlines alleged that it was their commercial practice to accept over booking since cancellation of ticket on international passage is very common. There is an international convention requiring the passenger to re-confirm their tickets 72 hours prior to departure of the aircraft. No such commercial practice or the international convention and its applicability thereof of Indian passengers, is established in the instant case and or that any such instructions, if exists, were brought to the notice of the complainants. Besides that, once the passenger is issued a confirmed ticket, the airlines ought to have honoured the same. Even if, it is true that the airlines accept over booking considering the rate of cancellation witnessed by it on international routes, they, obviously, do it for their own profit or to safeguard their commercial interests and for which a passenger should not be penalized or allowed to suffer inconvenience, once he possesses a confirmed air ticket. At least, the airlines was expected to handle the issue with humanitarian approach and to render all possible help to secure alternate passage since due to over booking such passenger could not be accommodated on the same flight. In the instant case, official of the airlines at Singapore not only presented themselves with the complainants exhibiting total lack of humanitarian consideration. Under the circumstances, they failed to perform their duties in the manner in which they are expected to discharge and hence deficiency in service on their part vis-à-vis on the part of airlines is well established in the instance case. We uphold the finding of the forum to this extent.
(6) In the complaint, the complainants claimed compensation of `73,581/- equivalent to Singapore $2852 i.e. expenses they had to incur to book the return passage from Singapore to Mumbai. They also claimed the interest @18% from 01/06/2000 and `50,000/- for harassment and mental torture. Against this, they were awarded only a compensation of `73,581/- and costs of `5,000/- along with interest of @9% p.a. from the date of the impugned order. We find that in any given circumstances, the grievance made by the complainant that the compensation is inadequate is justified. They only reimburse the actual expenses incurred by them, but the mental trauma, anxiety and the inconvenience; they suffered since due to the behavior of the officials of the airlines at Singapore once they denied boarding pass to them and further not arranging any alternate passage for return to Mumbai leaving the complainants on their own who were required to arrange for their own finance to book return ticket etc., certainly, would have caused them mental torture, inconvenience and anxiety. Therefore, we find it just and proper to award compensation of `1,00,000/- (`One Lac only) the amount which would include the actual expenses incurred by them and compensation on account of mental torture and inconvenience etc. We hold accordingly and pass the following order.
ORDER
(1) Appeal No.A/04/597 is partly allowed.
(2) Impugned order is partly modified. In the operative part of the impugned order, substitute the figure `73,581/- by figure `1,00,000/- and the interest payable over the said amount @9% p.a. with effect from date of the order of the forum i.e. 24/02/2004.
(3) The costs awarded of `5,000/- as per the impugned order is maintained.
(4) As far as appeal No.A/04/597 is concerned, respondent to bear his own costs and pay `10,000/- as costs to the appellant.
(5) Appeal No.A/04/789 stands dismissed.
(6) As far as appeal No.A/04/789 is concerned, both the parties shall bear their own costs.
(7) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 29th January, 2013.
