Date of Filing: 11.08.2010
Date of Order: 13.04.2011
BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20
Dated: 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2011
PRESENT
Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.
Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.
Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.
COMPLAINT NO: 1882 OF 2010
S. Sukumar
S/o. Late Sachidanandam
R/at No. 606, 100 Feet Road
J P Nagar VI Phase
Bangalore 560 078 Complainant
V/S
1. Air India Limited
Domestic Departure Terminal
Bangalore Airport
Bangalore 560 017
Rep. by the Airport Manager
2. Air India Limited
Registered Office
Hansalaya Building, 5th Floor
15, Barakhamba Road
New Delhi 110 001
Rep. by its Senior Manager Opposite Parties
ORDER
By the President Sri S.S. Nagarale
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
The facts of the case are that the complainant had to go over to USA. He had booked air tickets from opposite party. On 13.05.2010 he checked in at the Bangalore International Airport at 5.45 p.m. along with luggage. On checking-in luggage was weighed. It was found in excess. Accordingly, he had to pay certain sums of monies towards excess luggage. The staff of the opposite party assessed to pay at Rs. 13,000/-. Complainant could not carry Indian Currency abroad. He used his American Express Credit Card. He produced Amex Card for payment. To his shock and surprise the Manager of opposite party expressed that Amex cards are not accepted. It was brought to his notice that it was Indian Airlines American Express Card. He expressed his inability to proceed further. The complainant with great difficulty managed to arrange for the amount to be paid at Air India Airport Counter to enable him to board the flight. The act of the opposite party in not providing service is deficiency of service. Complainant submits that transfer from New York Airport to New York city was agreed to be provided by the airport. To his horror he found that such arrangement is cancelled. Complainant’s daughter’s convocation was scheduled on the same day. He had to make his own arrangement. This also amounts to deficiency of service. On way back from New York to Bangalore it was found that one piece of luggage was missing which contained important documents. After constant follow up for 3 to 4 days the luggage was traced and returned. This also amounts to deficiency of service. The complainant assessed damages for the above deficiency at a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental trauma, stress and embarrassment. Therefore, complainant prayed that opposite party be directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation.
2. Opposite party filed defence version stating that complainant was called upon to pay Rs. 13,000/- for excess piece of luggage. In view of the shifting of new BIAL Airport in Devanahalli, opposite party did not have swiping machine of Amex Card. Opposite party had HDFC swiping machine. The allegation of deficiency of service on the part of opposite party in this respect is false. It is submitted that Limo facility at New York was promised to be given as a complement to the passengers. Opposite party could not provide the said facility at New York for the bonafide reasons beyond their control and it was informed to the complainant by issuing cancellation voucher. It is submitted that on arrival at Bangalore, on his return, the passenger received 4 pieces of baggage out of 5 pieces checked in on 29th May. After follow up and tracing, baggage was forwarded from Mumbai after observing cooling period of 24 hrs as it was an international baggage. The baggage was received on 3rd June and on the same day it was delivered to the complainant. Baggages were delivered in tact to the complainant. Opposite party has not committed any deficiency of service and not liable to pay any damages. Hence, the opposite parties have prayed dismissal of the complaint.
3. Respective parties have filed affidavit evidence. They have also submitted written arguments.
4. The points for consideration are:
1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
2. If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the compensation?
REASONS
5. The complainant has alleged three points of deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and the complainant has also made allegation of dereliction of duty and shabby treatment on three specific grounds. (1) Refusal to accept Indian Airlines American Express Card (Amex card) for payment of excess luggage charge at the International Airport, Devanahalli (2) Opposite party has failed to make arrangement for conveyance/transfer from New York Airport to New York City in spite of specific agreement (3) misplacement of complainant’s luggage on return from New York to Bangalore Airport and delay of 4 days in handing over / delivery of missing luggage. These are the three specific grievances made against the opposite parties. The opposite party in their defence version has clearly admitted all the three deficiencies. In the defence version it has been stated that in view of shifting of new BIAL Airport in Devanahalli the opposite party did not had swiping machine of Amex available but the traffic office of the opposite party had the HDFC swiping machine which accepts Master / Visa cards. This defence clearly amounts admission of deficiency of service. The opposite party could have made arrangement well in advance the swiping machine which accepts Amex cards. Shifting of Airport to Devanahalli is not a ground or excuse not to provide the facility promised. Likewise, the opposite party has also clearly admitted that they have not provided Limo facility to the complainant at New York Airport to reach to the New York city. The opposite party submitted that in the defence version they have not provided Limo facility at New York for the bonafide reasons beyond their control. Complainant had made own arrangement for transfer / conveyance. This defence is also clearly admits deficiency of service. Opposite party had undertaken to provide transfer facility to New York Airport to New York City. Admittedly, it has failed to provide said facility which is a clear case of deficiency of service. The third grievance of complainant is also accepted and admitted by the opposite party. Opposite party submitted that on arrival at Bangalore Airport on return journey the complainant received 4 pieces of baggage out of 5 pieces checked in on 29th May and one baggage was missing. After follow-up and tracing the same the missing baggage was delivered to the complainant on 3rd June. This is clear case of deficiency of service. No further proof is required. Missing of luggage of passenger is really shocking incident. Naturally, the passengers suffer mental trauma, harassment and inconvenience. In this case 5 days delay was made to trace and deliver the missing baggage to the complainant. No further proof is required to establish and prove deficiency of service. Therefore, on all three grounds the opposite party has committed deficiency of service. The complainant has prayed compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental trauma, stress, harassment and embarrassment caused to him. The complainant while arguing the case submitted that awarding of damages being a discretionary relief he has left the matter to the discretion of the forum. No doubt no amount of compensation will compensate the mental agony, harassment and inconvenience caused to the party. Further, to meet the ends of justice it would be just, fair and reasonable to award compensation of Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant for the deficiency of service rendered by the opposite party. Consumer Protection Act is a social and benevolent legislation intended to protect better interests of consumers. The complainant herein being a ‘Consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act his interest requires to be protected by passing orders for payment of compensation. In the result I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
6. The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of order till payment / realisation. In the event of non-compliance of the order within 30 days the above amount carries interest at 6% p.a. from the date of order till payment / realisation.
7. The opposite parties are also directed to send the amount as ordered above to the complainant directly by way of cheque / D.D. with intimation to this forum.
8. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately.
9. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2011.
Order accordingly,
PRESIDENT
We concur the above findings.
MEMBER MEMBER
