Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
Challenging the Order dated 10-04-2015 of the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata, Unit-II (Central) in CC No. 291/2014 whereof the complaint has been dismissed, this Appeal is filed by Sri Banibrata Poddar, Complainant of the complaint case.
To narrate in brief, case of the Complainant is that, on 10-01-2014, he was supposed to return to New York via New Delhi-London. For this purpose, he reached Kolkata Airport on the scheduled date in time. On reaching there, he came to know that the concerned Air India flight to Delhi, AI-21 would start late. Since he was in a hurry to catch the flight to London from New Delhi which was scheduled to depart Delhi Airport at 1.55 p.m. on that day, he urged the airline officials to accommodate him along with his wife in Flight No. AI-763, which left Kolkata Airport at 9 a.m. It is alleged that, although he made no bones about his exigency, airline officials still remained unmoved. Ultimately, AI-21 left Kolkata airport at 12.30 p.m. and by the time he reached Delhi airport, the London bound plane left the airfield. As a result, not only that he got stranded in New Delhi for 4 days, he had to incur heavy financial loss simply because of the apathetic attitude of the OP airline. Accordingly, this complaint.
Per contra case of the OP is that, the delay occurred due to poor visibility at both New Delhi and Kolkata for which scheduled departure time of AI-021 was revised from time to time on that day. It is stated that Flight No. VS 301 of Virgin Atlantic was not a code share flight with Air India and further there was no legal obligation upon the OP to accommodate the Complainant and his wife in its earlier Flight No. AI-763 since AI-021 was not a link flight of VS-301. The OP also did not have any legal obligation to provide free hotel accommodation with transportation from airport or pay compensation for damages to the Complainant due to delay of Flight No. AI-021 and there was no negligence and irresponsible services of this OP, as alleged.
Decision with reasons
We have attentively heard the submission made by the Ld. Advocates of both sides and perused the material on record.
Undisputedly, the scheduled flight, i.e., AI-021 reached New Delhi airport too late for which the Appellant could not catch the London bound flight, i.e., VS-301. It is also not in dispute that another flight of the Respondent airline, i.e., AI-763 left Kolkata Airport at 9 a.m. However, the Appellant was not allowed to board the said flight.
The Respondent justified such stand contending inter alia that it had no legal obligation to accord such patronage to the Appellant since it was not a link flight of VS-301.
We afraid, such bizarre disposition on the part of a service-provider is highly deplorable. Can the Respondent deny that a passenger deserves due right to get the optimum value of his hard-earned money or that, a passenger too has every right to reach the intended destination in time.
It is noteworthy here that although the Respondent attributed the delay to fog condition, no tangible proof is furnished from its side to drive home such contention. There is even no clarity if any other airline was hit so hard on that day because of alleged poor weather condition.
On the other hand, it is alleged by the Appellant that since the same aircraft which landed Kolkata from Delhi airport late, as a sequel thereof, the return flight, i.e., AI-021 started late from Kolkata airport. Significantly, the Respondent has not specifically denied such allegation.
It appears that AI-021 was originally scheduled to depart Kolkata airport at 09.50 hrs. If AI-763 could start for Delhi at 09.00 hrs. braving the prevailing weather condition on that day, there was no viable reason, save and except what the Appellant alleged, for the AI-021 to miss the schedule. Be it mentioned here that the enormity of fog is not so severe in this part of the country and around 10 o’clock in the morning usually we witness drastic improvement in the weather condition. Therefore, in absence of material proof from the side of the Respondent, we cannot accept its contention as a gospel truth.
Further, if indeed the same flight landed Kolkata airport from Delhi late on that day owing to unfriendly weather condition, it was incumbent on the part of the Respondent to make alternative arrangement for those passengers, who were in urgent need of reaching the destination in time by accommodating them in its other flights. If the Respondent made no such attempt, the buck stops at its door; Respondent cannot sidestep its entire liability attributing the delay to force majeure reasons.
Another alibi put forth by the Respondent is that AI-763 was chock-a-block on that day. Here too, we do not come across any documentary proof from the side of the Respondent.
Put together, there seems reasonable ground to believe that simply on account of lack of wherewithal on the part of the officials of the Respondent, the Appellant had to endure so much harassment, not to speak about the incidental financial loss which was quite substantial in monetary term.
Since it was a single ticket for the entire journey from Kolkata to New York, it is naïve to believe that the Respondent was fully aware of the urgency of the Appellant to reach Delhi airport in time. Insofar as the Respondent was fully aware of late arrival of the aircraft from Delhi to Kolkata airport which was again supposed to return to Delhi, Respondent cannot feign ignorance about the possibility of delayed running of AI-021. We believe, if the concerned officials of Respondent had slightest inclination, Appellant could easily be allowed to board AI-763. A consumer cannot be left in the lurch on account of the systematic lacunae of the service provider. Alas, the Respondent miserably failed to rose to the occasion.
According to Sec. 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, "deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
Despite being fully aware of the fact that it would not be able to ferry the Appellant to Delhi Airport in time, the Respondent did not lend due cooperation to the Appellant in a bizarre show of antipathy towards public good. No doubt, it was a clear instance of gross deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent. For this very reason, in our considered opinion, the Respondent cannot avoid making good the loss suffered by the Appellant.
The Appeal, thus, succeeds.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
The Appeal stands allowed on contest against the Respondent with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- being payable by the Respondent to the Appellant. The Respondent is directed to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- to the Appellant for the financial loss suffered by the latter while purchasing fresh air tickets, loss of mandays, extra fooding and lodging charges, besides the immense harassment, mental and physical stress and agony endured in the matter within 40 days hence, i.d., simple interest @ 9% p.a. over the aforesaid sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- shall accrue for the entire period of default. The impugned order is hereby set aside.
