THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR

Consumer Complaint No.579-14

Date of Institution : 11.11.2014

Date of Decision : 21.10.2015

Mrs. Megha Sandhu w/o Sh. Karan Singh R/o 5-Court Road, Amritsar

...Complainant

Vs.

Air India Ltd. Through its Chairman/Managing Director/Principal Officer service through its branch office at Court Road, Amritsar through its Branch Head

....Opp.party

Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present : For the complainant : Sh. Deepinder Singh,Advocate

For the opposite party : Sh.Vikram Puri,Advocate

Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member

& Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member

Order dictated by :-

Bhupinder Singh, President

1 Present complaint has been filed by Megha under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that she purchased Air ticket for 30.7.2013 for Rs. 48,600/- to travel from Amritsar to New Delhi and then to London and then by Air Canada to Canada from the opposite party . According to the

-2-

complainant she was 29 weeks pregnant at the time of travel on 30.7.2013 and was fit to travel by air as per medical certificate issued by the attending Gynaecologist and the same has been forwarded to the opposite party. On 30.7.2013 complainant reported the opposite party, who issued boarding pass and her luggage was checked and loaded, but after few minutes opposite party's officials off loaded the luggage of the complainant from the plane and was denied to travel on the ground that she is pregnant. Complainant has alleged that she made the officials of the opposite party understand that she is travelling as per rules and is fit for travel and again showed the medical certificate but the officials of the opposite party did not allow the complainant and made her to lift back her baggage . The complainant then have to sit for a long time with her baggage at the Airport and thereafter opposite party advised the complainant to get ultrasound if she wants to travel which is even not medically advised at this stage of pregnancy. However , later on the officials of the opposite party allowed the complainant to travel on the same route with the same condition rather one more advance day of pregnancy i.e. on 31.7.2013 on the same documents but the complainant had to purchase the fresh air ticket for Rs. 1,19,500/- for travelling her to same destinaion by the same Airlines . Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs. 1,19,500/- alongwith interest. Compensation of Rs. 18,00,000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.

2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was

-3-

admitted that complainant was 29 weeks pregnant at the time of travel on 30.7.2013. It was denied that complainant was fit for travel by air as per medical certificate issued by the attending Gynaecologist. It was denied that complainant was handed over boarding pass and her luggage was checked and loaded on the plane and thereafter the officials of the opposite party off loaded the complainant and her baggage from the plane. It was submitted that complainant was not allowed to travel by the checking staff of Airport because she was not having proper medical fitness certificate to travel by air and was stopped at checking counter . The complainant never cleared the immigration and subsequently never boarded the plane . The medical certificate produced by the complainant mentioned “passenger eight months pregnant and fit to travel”. The certificate never mentioed that the complainant was fit to travel by Air or not. So the complainant was directed to bring the proper medical certificate. Even otherwise, Air India is concerned with the safety of its passengers and to avoid any mishappening to the complainant, her foetus as well as other passengers. It was submitted that complainant missed the journey due to her own fault. However, on the next day i.e. on 31.7.2013 complainant produced proper medical certificate certifying that she was fit to travel by air, therefore, she was allowed to travel on the flight on 32.7.2013 on the same route. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.

3. Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-7.

-4-

4. Opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Gurcharan Singh, Station Master Ex.OP1.

5 We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the parties.

6. From the record i.e.pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties,, it is clear that complainant purchased Air tickets for 30^th July 2013 to travel from Amritsar to New Delhi and then to London and then by Air Canada to Canada from the opposite party on payment of Rs. 48600/-. The said ticket is Ex.C-4. The complainant was 29 week pregnant at the time of travel on 30.7.2013. However, she was fit for travel by Air as per medical certiicate issued by the attending Gynaecologist Ex.C-6 and was forwarded to the opposite party. The complainant submitted that on 30.7.2013 complainant reported the opposite party, who issued boarding pass and her luggage was checked and loaded. But after few minutes opposite party's officials off loaded the luggage of the complainant from the plane and was not allowed to travel on the said flight on the ground that she is pregnant . The complainant persuaded the opposite party that as per rules she is fit for travel and the opposite party was given prior intimation about this fact and again showed the medical certiicate of fitness to travel and status of her pregnancy . But the officials of the opposite party did not allow the complainant rather she was forced to lift back her

-5-

baggage in such a situation of pregnancy. The complainant then have to sit for a long time with her baggage at the Airport and thereafter opposite party advised the complainant to get ultrasound if she wants to travel. The complainant explained the opposite party officials that she is medically fit and as per rules she is entitled to fly but the officials of the opposite party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Resultantly she had to miss that flight . Later on the officials of the opposite party on the same day have gone through the rules and then allowed the complainant to travel on the same route with the same condition rather with one more day of pregnancy i.e. on 31.7.2013 on the same documents. But the complainant has to purchase a fresh air ticket for Rs. 1,19,500/- Ex.C-3 invoice of which is Ex.C-2 for travelling to her destinaion on the same Airlines. Opposite party has committed grave deficiency in service by not allowing a pregnant lady to fly on the flight on frivolous ground which late on they came to know that opposite party was not justified in not allowing the complainant to travel through their flight on 30.7.2013. Rather she was forced to lift her baggage which was off loaded as a result ofn which the complainant suffered mental agony, harassment despite a huge financial loss as well as loss of time.

7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that the complainant was pregnant as on 30.7.2013, so she was not fit for travel by air. Opposite party denied that the complainant was handed over boarding pass and her luggage was checked and loaded on the plane and thereafter the officials of the opposite party off loaded the complainant and her luggage from the plane and was denied to travel . Infact the

-6-

complainant was not allowed to travel by the checking saff at Airport because she was not having proper medical fitness certiticate to travel by air and was stopped at checking counter itself and she did not clear immigration and subsequently did not board the plane. The medical certificate produced by the complainant Ex.C-6 certified “passenger 8^th months pregnant and fit to travel” but the Gynaecologist has not mentioned that the complainant was fit to travel by Air. So the complainant was directed to bring proper medical certificate so as to enable her to travel in the flight as the opposite party is concerned with the safety of its passengers to avoid any mishappening to the complainant, her foetus as well as other passengers travelling in the flight. So the complainant was not allowed to travel in that flight. Opposite party stated that the complainant missed journey on 30.7.2013 due to her own fault and the inconvenience, if any suffered by the complainant or her attendants is due to fault on the part of the complainant. On the next day i.e. 31.7.2013 the complainant produced proper medical certificate certifying that she is fit to travel by air, therefore, she was allowed to travel on the flight on 31.7.2013 on the same route. However, the opposite party is not aware of transaction between the complainant and Air Canada as the complainant had not made the Air Canada as party to the present complaint nor the complainant could produce any certificate from Air Canada to prove that she could not travel from London to Canada through Air Canada. Ld.counsel for the opposite arty submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.

-7-

8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant got Air ticket from the opposite party for 30.7.2013 Ex.C-4 to travel from Amritsar Raja Sansi Airport to Delhi and from Delhi to London Heathrow Airport and thereafter from Heathrow Airport London to Calgary International Airport Canada through Air Canada. The complainant paid Rs. 48600/- for this ticket. The complainant was 29 week pregnant and she mentioned these facts to the opposite party at the time of booking of the ticket and she also produced medical certificate from Gynaecologist of Dr.Jasjeet Chhachi Nursing Home dated 27.3.2013 Ex.C-6 in which the doctor certified that complainant is 8 months pregnant (29 weeks) and she is fit to travel by Air. The complainant reported the opposite party on 30.7.2013 .She was issued boarding pass Ex.C-5 and her luggage was checked and loaded in the Aircraft by the opposite party officials. However, she was not allowed to travel by that flight and her baggage was off loaded on the ground that she is pregnant. Opposite party stated that as per rules of the opposite party a pregnant lady can travel through their flight upto 35^th week of pregnancy with medical certificate. The complainant produced medical certificate to the effect that she is fit to travel which was not a proper certificate. She should have produced certificate certifying that she is fit to travel by air. The complainant has produced certificate dated 23.7.2013 Ex.C-6 and she has presented the same to the officials of the opposite party on 30.7.2013 at the time of boarding flight, in which it has been categorically mentioned that she is 8^th months (29 weeks) pregnant and she is fit to travel by Air. So this plea of the opposite party is totally

-8-

baseless that the complainant has produced certificate to the effect that she was fit to travel only and not certificate certifying that she is fit to travel by Air. Apart from this as per instructions/rules of the opposite party any expectant mother be accepted for travel upto and including the 35^th week of pregnancy i.e. upto atleast 5 weeks prior to the expected date of confinement (delivery) . A medical certificate from the attending Obstetrician must be obtained stating that she is fit to travel. Nowhere in these rules, it has been mentioned that certificate must state that she is fit to travel by air . Rather in the present case the complainant has produced medical certificate dated 23.7.2013 Ex.C-6 to the opposite party on 30.7.2013 before boarding the flight in question as per ticket issued by the opposite party Ex.C-4 which clearly certifies that the complainant was fit to travel by Air . But inspite of that the opposite party did not allow the complainant to board that flight rather her luggage was off loaded from that flight on 30.7.2013. The complainant had to miss that flight on 30.7.2013. However, later on opposite party became aware and realised their mistake by going through their own rules as well as by properly checking the certificate Ex.C-6 dated 23.7.2013 produced by the complainant in which it is categorically mentioned that she is fit to travel by air, opposite party realized that they are at fault and they allowed the complainant on the basis of same certificate and same facts i.e. the same status of the complainant rather with one day more pregnancy, to travel by their own flight on the next day i.e. 31.7.2013. But the complainant had to purchase fresh ticket for that journey i.e. ticket Ex.C-3 by paying another sum of Rs. 1,19,500/- as per invoice

-9-

Ex.C-2. All this shows that the complainant had to spend Rs. 1,19,500/- excessive and she has to suffer lot mentally, physically as she has to waste one full day at Airport and that too in such a situation with 29 week prgnancy and she also suffered financially and she lost her one day of travel due to fault on the part of the opposite party. Opposite party could not produce any evidence that the complainant was allowed any concession or that their earlier amount of Rs. 48600/- of ticket x.C-10 has been refunded to the complainant nor the opposite party could produce any evidence to prove that they were justified in not allowing the complainant to travel through their flight on 30.7.2013, the air ticket of which is Ex.C-4.

9. Resultantly we allow the complaint with costs and the opposite party is directed to refund this amount of Rs. 1,19,500/- to the complainant. Opposite party is also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 20000/- to the complainant for the inconvenience suffered by the complainant. Opposite party is also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 2000/- to the complainant. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

21.10.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )

President

/R/ ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma) Member Member