| Final Order / Judgement | CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN SECTOR-20, DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110077 CASE NO. CC/303/2021 Date of Institution:-21.10.2021 Date of Decision:-24.03.2023 IN THE MATTER OF: Sandeep Walia 603, Plot 19 B, Aastha Apartments, Sector 6, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075 VERSUS Air India Sansad Bhawan, Airlines House, 113, Gurudwara Rakabganj Road, Sansad Marg Area, New Delhi Delhi - 110001 …..Opposite Party O R D E R Per Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta, President - The Complainant has filed the complaint under section 34 (1) (2) (d), 35, 36 and 39 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with allegations that on 04.07.2021 he booked LTC Flight Tickets for his wife and daughter through respondent from New Delhi to Mumbai for Air India 865 Flight. All of them were fully vaccinated and carrying certificate to this effect. Mr. Anand, employee of respondent, was shown the dependent card by his wife but he was adamant for RTPCR Test. The movement of Army officers and their family member has been opened since November, 2020. His family members were made to go from one gate to another. The unnecessary formalities were completed but officials of the respondent did not allow his family members to fly. His family members were unnecessarily harassed. They had to attend a family function in the evening. They had to pay a sum of Rs.6200/- for arranging the tickets for flight in the evening. His family members face no hurdle while boarding the evening flight with the same documents which were in their possession. His family members failed to get benefit of LTC Flight. A complaint no.020987 was registered with the opposite party but in vain. There was negligence on the party of the respondent. There was unfair trade practice in order to dupe his family members of their hard earned money. The proper services were not provided which lead to mental agony and stress. A legal notice dated 08.07.2021 was issued to OP but in vain. Hence, this complaint.
- The OP has filed a reply with the preliminary objections that complainant has suppressed the material facts from the court and no cause of action has arisen in his favour. On merits, it is averred that there is no misconduct or negligence on the part of the OP. The family members of the complainant were not allowed to board the flight due to some misunderstanding of the official of the OP as the official insisted for RTPCR Report whereas army officials and their family members are exempted for furnishing the same. The OP put his best to rectify the mistake after coming to know of the same tried to accommodate them in the same flight. The boarding was complete so the family members could not board the flight. There is no deficiency in the service on the part of the OP as official has acted in good faith and in bonafide manner. No damage has been suffered by the complainant. The reply is duly supported by an affidavit.
- The Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. The OP has filed the affidavit of Sh. Vijay Kunj in the evidence.
- The complainant has filed an authorization certificate issued by his wife in his favour as she is unable to attend the court proceedings and her husband will attend the same.
- We have heard the complainant and Ld. Counsel for the OP and perused the material on record.
- Section 2 (7) (ii) of the act says that any person who hires the service for a consideration is a Consumer. Section 2 (42) of the Act says that services means services of any description which is made available to the potential users and includes but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board, or lodging or both, entertainment, amusement, or the purveying a news or other information, but does not include the rendering any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service. The dictionary meaning of the word “hired” is to procure the use of services at a price.
- In the instant case, the complainant has got LTC Tickets booked for his family members from New Delhi to Mumbai for Air India 865 flight through the respondent. This fact is duly admitted by OP. The family member of the compliant was duly vaccinated and they were having certificate to this effect. The family members of the complainant were not allowed to board the flight by the official of the OP due to the non-production of RTPCR Report though army officials and their family members were exempted and this fact is also admitted by the OP.
- The question is whether complainant is a consumer or not. The LTC tickets were in the name of the family members i.e. wife and daughter of the complainant. Both of them had gone to board the Air India 865 flight from New Delhi to Mumbai. They were allegedly not allowed to board the flight due to non-production of RTPCR report though they were duly vaccinated and even exempted under the rules to produce the same.
- The wife and daughter of the complainant are the “Consumers” with the ambit of Section 2 (7) of the Act. They should have filed the complaint for the alleged deficiency of service on the part of OP. They have not given any General or Special Power of Attorney to the Complainant to file the complaint. The complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence which is of no use in the absence of any attorney in his favor.
- The complainant is not a consumer so he is not competent to file the complaint. The consumers i.e. wife and daughter of the complainant can file the complaint in accordance with law.
- The complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and dismissed.
Copy of this order be given dasti. File be consigned to record room thereafter. | |
