BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No.116 of 2015
Date of Institution: 27.2.2015
Date of Decision: 23.6.2016
Mr. Sukhpal Singh S/o Sh. Arjan Singh R/o 701, A Block, New Amritsar Amritsar
Complainant
Versus
Air India Ltd. through its Chairman/Managing Director/Principal Officer service through its Branch Office at Court Road, Amritsar through its Branch Head
Opposite Party
Complaint under section 12 & 13 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present: For the Complainant : Sh.Deepinder Singh,Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Sh. Vikramjit Singh,Advocate
Coram
Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.
1. Sukhpal Singh complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 12 &13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that complainant purchased Air tickets from the opposite party through their authorized booking agent M/s. Mannat Travels for Rs. 31500/- to travel with the opposite party from Amritsar to new Delhi and to Bangkok on 10.2.2015 and then back from Singapore to New Delhi on 17.2.2015 for himself (copy of flight schedule is annexed with the complaint). As such, complainant is a consumer as provided under the Act and the complainant is competent to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum. The complainant reached Amritsar Airport as scheduled on 10.2.2015 to travel with the opposite party but the flight did not take off for more than four and half hours . The complainant alongwith other passengers were made to sit and to wait at the airport and was assured after every half an hour that the flight will be soon ready to take off . Ultimately the flight took off at 3.00 p.m. which was actually scheduled for 10.30 a.m. The conditions and the staff was not courteous and they did not offer even a plain glass of water to the passengers , who remained stranded for more than four and half hours at the airport. At last after four and half hours of horrific ordeal the flight took off at 3.00 p.m. and reached the New Delhi Airport . The connected flight of the opposite party had already taken off and the complainant and other co passengers were left at New Delhi Airport in the lurch . Later on, on that day complainant was put on another flight to Mumbai Airport at 9.00 p.m & he was again adjusted in another flight from Mumbai to Bangkok which reached Bangkok at around 7.30 a.m on 11.2.2015. It is pertinent to mention over here that the complainant had got his hotel bookings and scheduled meetings on 10.2.2015 late evening as the complainant is Engineering Professional and had to miss them and his schedule was totally upset with the deficient and unprofessional services of the opposite party. It is further pertinent to mention over here that complainant was kept without any food and alternate accommodation by the opposite party during their delayed flight schedule and the staff of the opposite party was highly discourteous. The horrific experience of the complainant did not end over here ; while the complainant was scheduled to return back on 17.2.2015 from Singapore to New Delhi the flight was again delayed for three hours and the flight which was scheduled to reach New Delhi at 11.30 a.m. landed at 2.30 p.m . The complainant had to catch the train which was already booked with great difficulty in a highly stressed atmosphere as the complainant had preoccupations as per his fixed schedule. The complainant has sought the following reliefs vide instant complaint :-
(a) The opposite party be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 31500/- for the tickets which the complainant has to purchase alongwith interest @ 12% p.a from purchase of tickets till realization.
(b) The opposite party be directed to pay compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/- to the complainant.
(c ) The opposite party be directed to pay the adequate cost of the litigation.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that present complaint is legally not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed ; that present complaint is an abuse of process of law and has been filed only to harass the replying opposite party. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party ; that complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint ; that the present complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it is admitted to the extent that complainant purchased the Air ticket . However, it is submitted that delay was from the previous centre due to time reaction and it happened about 4 ½ hours and as per DGCA rules the connected flight from Delhi to Mumbai was provided free of costs to the complainant. The complainant took the said flight without any objection. It is also submitted that during this period snacks boxes which includes muffin, juice, sandwich, water bottle, biscuits etc were provided to the complainant. The complainant reached Delhi to Mumbai free of costs from where he was provided further flight in time to Bangkok. It is denied that the complainant had got his hotel booking and scheduled meeting on 10.2.2015 late evening. There is no documentary proof and it is false and concocted story. It is denied that the complainant has missed anything as alleged in this para. It is also denied that there is any deficient or un-professional service on the part of the opposite party. It is denied that the complainant was kept without any food and alternate accommodation by the opposite party during the delayed flight schedule. It was denied that after this horrific experience the opposite party putting fuel on fire while the complainant was scheduled to return back on 17.2.2015 from Bangkok to New Delhi as alleged in this para. It is stated that opposite party had already sent the message of reschedule flight on the registered mobile phone or e-mails of the passengers 5-6 hours prior to the schedule. It is denied that the complainant caught the train with great difficulty nor there are any allegation that complainant missed the train. It is denied that any alleged act on the part of the opposite party is gross deficiency in service, malpractice, unfair trade practice or has caused any mental and physical agony or harassment to the complainant. The complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
3. In his bid to prove the case Sh.Deepinder Singh,Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1, copy of air ticket Ex.C-2, copy of hotel stay Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4.
4. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.B.S.Arri,Adv.counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.R.K.Negi, Station Manager Ex.OP1, copy of invoice of snack Ex.OP2, copy of detail of upgradation of ticket from economy to upgrade class Ex.OP3, copy of Civil Aviation Requirements Ex.OP4.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
6. On the basis of the evidence on record, ld.counsel for the opposite party has vehemently contended that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant Sukhpal Singh on the allegations that he purchased Air ticket from the opposite party through authorized booking agent from Amritsar to New Delhi and to Bangkok on 10.2.2015. There are further allegations of the complainant that he reached Amritsar Airport on 10.2.2015 in time but the flight did not take off for more than four and half hours and the complainant was made to sit over there. There are further allegations that when the complainant reached New Delhi, the connected flight had already taken off. The complainant remained stranded at New Delhi Airport in an uncourteous manner and lateron, on that day, he was put on another flight to Mumbai Airport at 9.00 p.m . When he reached Mumbai, he was adjusted to some other flight from Mumbai to Bangkok. There are further allegations of the complainant that complainant was an engineer by profession & he had his hotel booking and scheduled meeting for 10.2.2015 late evening. The complainant remained upset with the deficient and unprofessional service of the opposite party. Opposite party has filed written statement and denied the allegations of the complainant. It was stated that the delay was from previous centre due to time reaction and it happened about four and half hours . As per DGCA rules the connected flight from Delhi to Mumbai was provided free of cost to the complainant and complainant took the said flight without any objection. During that period snacks boxes which included muffin, juice, sandwich, water bottle, biscuits etc were provided to the complainant. The complainant reached Delhi to Mumbai free of cost. In the evidence opposite party has also placed on record Ex.OP-2 invoice providing snacks, invoice Ex.OP3 VDT details ,Ex.OP4 Rules of DGCA and as per section 3.3.3 “No financial compensation shall be payable to passengers who have not provided adequate contact information at the time of making booking or when the ticket for firm travel on the selected flight is issued. In respect of such passengers the airlines will either refund the ticket prices or make reasonable endeavour to make alternate travel arrangements as per the choice of the passengers. Additionally, in respect of such passengers who elect to travel to their destination on an alternate flight, the airline shall provide them with reasonable facilities during the period that they are required to wait at the airport for the alternate flights in accordance with para 3.6.1(a).” In the present case admittedly the complainant voluntarily chose the alternate flight and completed his journey without any objection. These facts were admitted by the complainant in the complaint as well as in evidence. So far as delay of four and half hours is concerned, it was from previous centre due to time reaction and as per DGCA rules, complainant was provided with connected flight. He was also provided with snacks etc. Complaint is false one and complainant has not suffered any loss due to delay of the said flight which was only four and half hours. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The present complaint as framed is not legally maintainable and is an abuse of the process of law. The complainant himself has accepted the alternate flight without any objection and completed his journey and as such he is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs was made.
7. However, from the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that the flight from Amritsar to Delhi was delayed by four and half hours . There is no explanation on record as to why such an inordinate delay took place in taking off the flight from Amritsar to New Delhi. The flight was scheduled to leave for New Delhi at 10.30 a.m while it left for New Delhi at 3.00 p.m . It is also in evidence that the connected flight from Delhi to Singapore had also taken off by that time when the Aeroplane landed at New Delhi Airport . The complainant was made to go to Mumbai by an alternate flight and he reached Mumbai Airport at 1.30 a.m on 11.2.2015. The complainant was adjusted in some other flight from Mumbai to Bangkok which reached there at around 7.30 a.m on 11.2.2015. The complainant was scheduled to reach Singapore on 10.2.2015 in the evening and the complainant has placed on record document Ex.C-3 to prove the said fact. The complainant had a tour of three days to stay at Bangkok which was reduced to two days’ journey due to the deficient service on the part of the opposite party. Not only that even the return journey from Bangkok to New Delhi was also delayed by three hours and the complainant could catch the train for Amritsar with great difficulty. All this shows that opposite party was negligent as well as deficient in service and it was required to pay compensation to the complainant.
8. On quantum of compensation, complainant has sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 4.50 lacs, which is quite exorbitant and fanciful. The complainant is not entitled to any exorbitant compensation rather he is entitled to compensation to off set the actual loss occasioned by him due to deficient service of the opposite party. Moreover, it is none of the intention of the legislature to enrich a party at the cost of another by awarding exhorbitant damages. In our considered opinion and from the facts and circumstances of the case, compensation to the tune of Rs. 20000/- for the loss occasioned by the complainant is sufficient to salvage the loss suffered by the complainant due to deficient service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant has also prayed for refund of the Air ticket to the tune of Rs. 31500/- . But, however, since the complainant has undertaken the journey on the basis of Air ticket , therefore, no refund of the Air ticket amount is available to the complainant. However, complainant is also awarded litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 2000/- . Compliance of this order be made within 30 days of the receipt of copy of the order ; failing which, awarded amount shall carry interest @ 6% p.a from the date of passing of order until full and final recovery. Copies of the orders 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.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 23.6.2016
/R/ ( S.S.Panesar )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
Member Member
