DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.155/2020
A.K.Panda
S/o Late Adaita Charan Panda
R/o DI/198 Satya Marg, Chankyapuri
New Delhi-110021. .…Complainant
VERSUS
Air India
Air India Delhi Reservation Office
Safdarjung Airport, Aurobindo Marg
New Delhi-110003.
Ms. Meenakshi Mallik
Director, Commercial
Regd. Office : Air India Limited
Airlines House
113, Gurudwara Rakabganj Road
New Delhi-110001.….Opposite Party
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Present: Complainant in person.
Present: Adv. Nupur proxy counsel on behalf of Adv. Suruchi Suri for OP.
ORDER
Date of Institution:28.08.2020
Date of Order :24.08.2024
President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava
Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the mental agony, discomfort during their journey and Rs.20,000/- towards cost of litigation. OP-1 is Air India and OP-2 is Director (Commercial) of OP-1.
- Complainant has stated that he had booked a ticket for his travel in s business class in Air India Flight No.AI 0184 for 22.09.2018 from San Francisco (SFo) to Delhi. Copy of the ticket is annexed as annexure P/1. It is stated that the complainant found the seat 8-F to be defective, expansion to sleeping mode dysfunctional, foot rest, adjustment etc. were not working. Broken food tray was pushing the thigh while taking food. In short, it was broken, defective, dysfunctional seat denying the comfort of a business class ticket.
- It is further stated that the complainant requested the crew for a change of seat but the flight attendant expressed inability and it was informed that the flight was full and that there was no vacant seat. It is the case of the complainant it was a long haul non-stop flight and the complainant at the time was 58 years old. Such discomfort caused lot of mental agony to the complainant. On his return, matter was brought to the notice of OP-1. Copy of the letter dated 03.10.2020 is annexed as annexure P/2.
- In its reply to the said letter, OP-1 has expressed regret towards deficiency in services, the letter of OP-1 is annexed as annexure P/3. It is the case of the complainant that OP has filed to maintain the flight to suit the requirements for a non-stop long haul travel. It is stated uncomfortable broken seats indicated the basis of premium fare and laid foundation for compensation.
- In their reply, which is filed for both the OP-1 and OP-2 it is stated that complainant has misrepresented crucial facts and suppressed certain material facts to turn the outcome in his favour.
- It is stated that the complainant concluded the said flight trip without any issue, no grievance was raised by the complainant during the flight or after the flight with the concerned officials of the OP. It is stated that only as an afterthought, the complainant issued a letter dated 03.10.2018 raising two issues that the foldable desk was not at an appropriate height and the seat was not at an appropriate slope.
- It is further, stated that OP conducted an internal inquiry and found the allegations to be unsubstantiated however, as a goodwill gesture OP vide its email dated 05.10.2018, apologised for any inadvertence, inconvenience caused to the complainant.
- It is further stated that the present complaint is not within the period of limitation and the same has been filed to extort unwarranted gains out of the said trip. It is stated that the complaint is devoid of any substantial proof of deficiency in service.
- It is stated that flight undertakes an inspection to ensure that the same are in compliance of the international stands of civil aviation and during the inspection an independent authority records the requisite compliance and defects, if any, in the log books maintained by the OP. The perusal of the log books clearly reflect that there was no subsisting issue with the subsisting seat 8-F on the said flight. Copy of the log book is annexed as annexure OP-1/2. It is further stated that none of the passengers before the complainant had raised in issue while travelling on the subject seat. It is further stated that assuming the version of the complainant to be correct, the complainant seat could not have been changed as there was no vacant seat on the said flight.
- It is further stated that complainant has failed to prove any justifiable or cogent ground which warrants compensation.
- In his rejoinder, the complainant has objected to the use of the word ‘extortion’ by the OP in his reply. Complainant has also objected to the written statement/reply being filed in time. It is further stated that the apology from OP is insignificant and as is their service standard.
- Both the complainant and OP have filed their respective evidence affidavits as well as written arguments. This Commission has gone through the entire material on record.
It is seen that the Complainant travelled on 22.09.2018 and the first complaint has been made by him only on 03.10.2018. Complainant has not filed any complaint with the OP after his return or during the journey. In his letter dated 03.10.2018 complainant has stated that he can provide pictures detailing his discomfort of the seat however he has not placed any such pictures on record. Infact, complainant has not placed on record any document to substantiate his claim. The apology letter sent by the OP dated 05.10.2018 and relied on by the complainant is a letter sent as a good gesture on the part of the service provider to their customer and does not refer to any particular incident.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of SGS India Limited vs Dolphin International AIR 2021 SC 4849 has held the following
“The onus of proof that there was deficiency in service is on the complainant. If the complainant is able to discharge its initial onus, the burden would then shift to the Respondent in the complaint.”
It is therefore, upon the complainant to initially discharge its onus to prove that there was deficiency in service on the part of OP. This Commission has gone through the pleadings and documents filed by the complainant and find that complainant has not been able to discharge this onus. Therefore, the present complaint is dismissed being devoid of any merits.
Copy of the order be given to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. order be uploaded on the website.
