BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Dr.Viral Shah, MBBS, MD, DM (running), Senior Resident, Department of Endocrinology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector 12, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                 V E R S U S

1]  Air India Ltd., through its Chairman, Office of air India, New Delhi,

    2^nd Address: Bank Square, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh.

2]  Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Ltd., A-501, 5^th floor, Building No.4, Infinity Park, Gen. A.K.Vaidya Marg, Dindoshi, Malad (East), Mumbai 400097.

3]  Khanna Enterprises Travel Services Branch at PGI, Nehru Hospital, Ground Floor, Chandigarh.

                      ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL                 PRESIDENT

         SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL       MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Arun Singla, Proxy Counsel for Sh.Parveen Kumar, Counsel for Complainant.

Sh.S.R.Chaudhuri, Counsel for OP-1.

Ms.Jaimini Tiwari, Proxy Counsel for Sh.Rajneesh Malhotra, Counsel for OP No.2.

OP-3 exparte.

PER P.D. GOEL, PRESIDENT

         The Complainant, through Air India Flight, travelled to Birmingham to attend a Conference, from 9^th to 17^th April, 2011. The tickets as well as insurance cover was taken from the OPs.

         It is averred that the scheduled departure of the complainant from Heathrow Airport, London to New Delhi by Air India Flight No.AI-116 was at 13.40 Hours on 17.4.2011 from Terminal No.3. The complainant checked-in well in time, but the flight was delayed initially for two hours, but ultimately arrived at 6.00 P.M. The complainant boarded the flight at 6.30 P.M.  It is stated that during the period of delay, the official of OP No.1 Airlines did not cooperate  and  information  about  the  exact time of delay was neither given nor displayed and only a coupon of Pounds 7/- for lunch was provided, which was too meager for taking a proper lunch. Moreover, the behaviour of staff members was very rude and uncalled for.  Even after boarding the said flight at 6.30 P.M., the complainant and other passengers were told to wait for another 1½ hours without disclosing any reason and in this way, the flight was delayed for more than 7 hours.

         It is asserted that the seat allotted to the complainant was totally uncomfortable and the crew members did not allow him to sit on another vacant seat. The T.V.Screen attached with the said seat was also not functioning.  Not only this, when the complainant reached at New Delhi Airport, he informed the Authorities that his baggage had not arrived in the air craft, as such he was made to wait at the Airport till 11.00 A.M., but even then, the complainant received only one baggage and the second baggage was missing.

         It is also asserted that the complainant humbly requested the Officers of OP-1 to give in writing about the reason of delay of Flight No.AI-116 but they refused. The complainant also requested OP-1 to compensate him for the harassment due to delay in flight as well as other difficulties faced by him. It is further averred that because of the delay in aforesaid flight, coupled with misguidance and casual & rude attitude of the authorities, the complainant has lost complete one working day, so he could not join the institute (PGIMER, Chandigarh) on 18.4.2011.  Moreover, the second luggage/baggage was received by him through courier after a delay of more than 36 hours i.e. on 19.4.2011 at 8.00 P.M. The complainant took the matter with OPs for granting him compensation, but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint.

2]       OP-1 filed reply and admitted the factual matrix of the case.  It is averred that the Flight NO.A1-116 was delayed due to security reasons.  It is also averred that the amount of pounds 7 is fixed officially, however, the complainant could have spent some money from his own pocket and claim as reimbursement later (Ann.D-1/A & D-2/A).  The complainant was informed vide e-mail dated 13.6.2011 that the flight under reference had to be diverted to Frankfurt since there was a fire warning in the Cargo hold. The cargo hold was checked and it was decided to off load the baggage at Frankfurt.  However, this information was not available with the staff at the check-in-counter at Heathrow.  It is also stated that no defect had been reported in Seat No.314, occupied by the complainant (Ann.D-1/B). The baggage delivered to the complainant was intact and no loss or pilferage was reported. The e-mails of complainant were duly replied vide Annexure D-1 to D-3.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations made by the complainant, OP-1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

         OP-2 also filed the reply and admitted the issuance of insurance policy No.HC107674 to the complainant on 8.4.2011 (Ann.R-2/1).  It is submitted that on receipt of information from complainant, a claim was duly registered and he was asked vide e-mail dated 2.6.2011 (Ann.R-2/2) to provide necessary document and also to fill-up the claim form.  However, on discussion with the insured, it transpired that the baggage delay had happened while the complainant was returning to Republic of India from Heathrow. Basis the same, the claim was denied as the baggage delay had occurred whilst the return journey to India, which was not covered as per Exclusion Clause of the terms & conditions of the policy, so the same was not payable, which was duly communicated to the complainant vide letter dated 15.6.2011 (Ann.R-2/3.  Denying rest of the allegations being related to OP-1 only, it is prayed that the complaint qua OP-2 be dismissed.  

         OP-3 did not turn up despite service, hence proceeded against exparte.

3]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]      We have heard the ld.Proxy Counsel for the complainant and OP-2 & ld.Counsel for OPs No.1 and have also perused the record.

5]       The ld.Counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant, through Air India Flight, travelled to Birmingham, to attend a Conference.  That the scheduled departure of the complainant from Heathrow Airport, London to New Delhi by Air India Flight was at 13.40 Hours on 17.4.2011, but the flight was delayed initially for two hours and ultimately arrived at 6.00 P.M. It was further argued that during the period of delay, the officials of OP No.1-Air India did not cooperate and information about the exact time of delay was neither supplied nor displayed and only a coupon of Pounds 7 for lunch was provided, which was too meager for taking a proper lunch.

6]       It was further argued that the behaviour of Staff Members of OP-1 was very rude.  The ld.Counsel for the complainant contended that the seat allotted to the complainant was totally uncomfortable and the Crew Members did not allow the complainant to sit on another vacant seat. It was also argued that when the complainant reached at New Delhi Airport, he informed by the Authorities that his baggage had not arrived in the Aircraft.  The complainant was made to wait at the Airport till 11.00 A.M., but even then, he received one baggage and the other baggage was missing.  It was further argued that due to the delay in flight coupled with rude attitude of the Authorities, the complainant could not join his Institute on 18.4.2011.  It was lastly argued that the other baggage of the complainant was received only on 19.4.2011.

7]       The ld.Counsel for OP No.1 raised the arguments that the Flight in question was delayed due to security reasons.  He also argued that Pounds 7 is fixed officially.  However, the complainant could have spent some money from his own pocket and could claim as reimbursement later on.  It was further argued that the complainant was informed vide e-mail dated 13.6.2011 that the flight under reference had to be diverted to Frankfurt as there was a fire warning and due to this the Cargo hold was checked & the decision as taken to off load the baggage at Frankfurt.  The said information was not available with the Staff at the Check-in-Counter at Heathrow. It was lastly argued that no defect was noticed in the Seat occupied by the complainant and the baggage delivered to the complainant was intact as no loss or pilferage was reported.

8]       The ld.Counsel for OP No.2 submitted that the baggage delay had happened while the complainant was returning to India from Heathrow, which was not covered as per the Exclusion Clause of the terms & conditions of the policy (Ann.R-2/1).

9]       The question, which calls determination from this Forum is whether the flight in question was delayed due to fire warning in the Cargo hold and it was decided to off-loan the baggages at Frankfurt due to security reasons.  The answer to this is in affirmative.

10]      Annexure D-1 is the copy of email, dated Monday 13 June, 2011, sent by Sh.P.K.Bhandari of Air India to the complainant, in response to his e-mail dated 26^th April, 2011. The relevant portion of this e-mail is reproduced as under:-

“1b. AI-115/17APR11 was diverted to Frankfurt since there was a fire warning in the cargo hold.  At Frankfurt, the cargo hold was checked and after inspection, it was decided to offload all the baggage/cargo at Frankfurt.

1c. Passengers could not be advised about the delay at the time of check-in as our staff were not aware that the flight was diverted to Frankfurt.

1c. Since there was a creeping delay, announcements were made for passengers to collect refreshment coupons.

         1d.………

1e. There were 38 vacant seats in Economy Class.  There may be a possibility that the crew would not have been able to assist much because of non-availability of aisle/window seats.

2a. As per our record, in flight Entertainment System on the subject flight was normal. It is probably that the server associated with the seat was intermittent and got reset.  Further no defect has been reported about seat 31H allocated to you, which continue to function normal till date.

3.  As regards your mis-handled baggage, we would like to advise you that AI-116/17APR departed from London without baggage due to security reasons.  The reason of non-arrival of baggage was informed to the passengers after arrival of AI-116/17APR in Delhi.”

11]      The contention contained in Ann.D-1, referred to above, has not been countered by ld.Counsel for the complainant, during the course of arguments.  Thus, we are of the opinion that the information contained in  Ann.R-1 goes unrebutted and uncontroverted.

12]      Thus, it is established on record that the flight in question was diverted to Frankfurt because of fire warning in the cargo hold at Frankfurt and after inspection; it was decided to off-load the cargo hold at Frankfurt.  It is also proved on record that the delay could not be explained to the complainant at the time of check-in-counter as the Staff of OP-1 was not aware that the flight was diverted to Frankfurt. 

13]      Admittedly, there was 38 vacant seats in the Economy Class of complainant’s flight.  The complainant has not produced sufficient evidence on file to prove that the Crew member of the Flight had not allowed him to sit on another vacant seat.  The self-serving affidavit of the complainant is not sufficient to prove the said fact.   The matter does no rest here, the complainant has also failed to prove on record that he ever reported the defect in the seat allowed to him. 

14]      As regards the delay in receipt of baggage, it is also proved from Ann.D-1, reproduced above, that the reason for non-delivery of baggage in time was that AI-116/17 APR departed from London without baggage due to security reasons.  Thus, the delay in flight and late delivery of baggage to the complainant, cannot be attributed as deficiency towards OP No.1, as it was due to the security reasons, which was beyond its control. 

15]      OP No.2 had placed on record the Schedule of Travel Insurance as Ann.R/1.  At Page No.11 of this document-Ann.R/1 under the heading Type of claim, it has been recorded that “There is no baggage delay coverage in India.” It is not the case of the complainant that the said terms & conditions were not in his knowledge.  Thus, it is held that OP No.2 is not liable to pay anything to the complainant for delay in delivery of baggage in India. 

16]      As a result of above discussion, we are of the firm opinion that the complainant has not been able to prove any deficiency or negligence on the part of OPs and therefore, the complaint is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.

         Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.