By Smt. Rajani.P.S, Member:
The complainant’s case is as follows: The complainant booked two flight tickets through the 2nd respondent and the first respondent had issued two confirmed (OK) tickets. One ticket was for himself and the other was for his friend Maniesh. The complainant’s ticket was from Cochin to Neirobi and from Neirobi to Cochin and his friend’s ticket was from Bangalore to Neirobi and from Neirobi to Bangalore. For both these tickets he paid Rs.47,454/-. As per the information from the first respondent regarding the flight timing the complainant and his friend arranged a tour programme to Neirobi and booked tickets through the 2nd respondent. Complainant boarded the flight on 8.7.05 at 3.45 A.M. from Cochin to Mumbai and his friend boarded the flight on the same day from Bangalore to Mumbai. After reaching Mumbai they came to know that first respondent had cancelled the flight from Mumbai to Neirobi and the first respondent had arranged a hotel at Mumbai to stay. The complainant was also informed by the respondents that their tickets are confirmed on 9.7.05 through Keniyan Airways which will depart at 3 a.m. But while they reached the airport they came to know that there were no booking in that airways as stated by the respondents. There after they came back and stayed in another hotel. They could leave to Neirobi only on 10.7.05 by getting reservation in South African Airways. The normal flying hours from Bombay to Neirobi is only six hours. Since the South African Airways was through Johanesburg they had reached at Neirobi only at 5.20 P.M. and taken 13 hours and 20 minutes for the journey. The complainant and his friend were supposed to spend at Neirobi till 15.7.05 after reaching Neirobi on 8.7.05. By the irresponsible act of the respondents they had lost two days and unnecessarily had to spend those days in hotel rooms. Apart from this they had to change the arranged plans at Neirobi and had to spend more money for the tour. All these inconveniences, mental agony and unnecessary expenses incurred only because of the deficiency of service from the part of the respondents. Hence the complaint and the complainant is filing the complaint for the claim of complainant only.
2. The counter of first respondent is that the averment regarding booking of the said ticket from the 2nd respondent for the complainant and Mr. Manish are facts best known to the complainant. The ticket numbers can be verified only if the complainant produces the ticket jacket. The averment that the complainant paid Rs.47,454/- for both the ticket is denied. This respondent is limiting the objection to the ticket booked by the complainant alone as there is no complaint from the other passenger who travelled on the other ticket allegedly booked by the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant was holding a confirmed booking on flight No.A1 691 of 8.7.05 from Cochin to Mumbai to connect flight No.A1 201 of 8.7.05 from Mumbai to Neirobi. Due to technical/engineering snag, it was decided by Air India’s headquarters in Mumbai to cancel flight No.A1-201 of 8.7.05 from Mumbai-Neirobi. By the time the message of cancellation of this flight could be received by AIR India’s reservation office at Cochin, it was well beyond the closing hours of the office ie. after 17.30 hrs. Therefore the complainant became aware of the cancellation of flight from Mumbai-Neirobi only when he reported for his flight to travel from Cochin-Mumbai on A1 flight No.691 on 8.7.2005. The complainant was informed of the cancellation of Air India flight and his rebooking on Kenya Airways on 9.7.2005 when he arrived at Cochin Airport on 8.7.2005. Air India’s airport office at Cochin rebooked the complainant on Kenya Airways flight on confirmed basis for travel from Mumbai to Neirobi. He was provided hotel accommodation at the first respondent’s cost due to cancellation of flight on 8.7.05. In spite of rebooked on Kenya Airways flight which was done on a confirmed basis, the complainant could not be offered a seat by Kenyan Airways. The reason why Kenyan Airways did not offer the seat to them despite having a confirmed seat is to be answered by them and not by Air India. Therefore Kenyan Airways is also a necessary party to above proceedings. The allegation that there was no booking on the Kenyan Airways is false and against facts. The complainant was therefore, subsequently rebooked by Air India on South African Airways. Here again the complainant was provided with free hotel accommodation. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service whatsoever on the part of this respondent. All the above was done by this respondent in good faith. There are no willful acts or omissions or negligence on the part of this respondent with intent to cause damage to the complainant. The allegation that he had to change the arranged plans at Neirobi and had to spend more money for the tour etc. are mere allegations made for the purpose of complainant and hence denied. Air India has also adhered to the rules pertaining to terms and conditions of the contract as provided in the air ticket in circumstances when flights get cancelled for reasons beyond the control of Air India. The general conditions of contract of carriage of passenger and baggage on the subject of cancellation of flight are explained in detail. No part of cause of action for the complainant arose within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum. The complainant is not entitled to the claim of Rs.3,50,000/- for alleged deficiency in service and Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and Rs.2000/- for the cost. The complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed and hence dismiss.
3. The counter of 2nd respondent is that this respondent is only a travel agent and had done the duties very promptly and sincerely. The duty of this respondent stops when they booked the two tickets. The liability of this respondent was for the booking of the 2 tickets and they had done it very satisfactorily. If there is any deficiency in service happened on the part of the first respondent, this respondent is not at all liable for it. This respondent is not at all aware of the facts that were happened after availing of the air tickets. This respondent is an unnecessary party to this complaint. This respondent is not aware of the hardships caused to the complainant due to the fault on the part of the first respondent and it is proved by the complainant himself. There is no deficiency in service on the part of this respondent and hence not at all liable for any compensation from the part of this respondent.
4. The points for consideration are:
(1) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the respondents?
(2) If so cost and compensation.
5. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 and P2 and Exts. R1 to R5. No oral evidence adduced by both.
6. Points: The case is filed for getting compensation from the respondents due to cancellation of the flight. The complainant booked two flight tickets through the 2nd respondent and the first respondent issued two OK tickets for him and his friend. The complainant’s ticket was from Cochin to Neirobi and from Neirobi to Cochin. His friend’s ticket was from Bangalore to Neirobi and Neirobi to Bangalore. Both of them boarded the flight on 8.7.05. After reaching Mumbai they came to know that first respondent had cancelled the flight from Mumbai to Neirobi and this respondent had arranged a hotel at Mumbai to stay. It was informed by the first respondent that their tickets are confirmed on 9.7.05 through Keniyan Airways. But when they reached the airport they came to know that there were no booking in that airways and stayed in another hotel on that day. They could leave to Neirobi only on 10.7.05 by getting reservation in South African Airways and this flight had taken 13 hours and 20 minutes to reach Neirobi instead of six hours of normal flying hours. The complainant and his friend had arranged a tour programme at Neirobi. Due to the irresponsible act of the respondents they had lost two days unnecessarily and this caused to change their arranged plans and had caused to spend more money for the four.
7. The first respondent in their counter stated that the complainant was holding a confirmed booking on flight No.A1 691 of 8.7.05 from Cochin to Mumbai to connect flight No.A1 201 of 8.7.05 from Mumbai to Neirobi. Due to technical/engineering snag, it was decided by Air India’s headquarters in Mumbai to cancel flight No.A1-201 of 8.7.05 from Mumbai-Neirobi. This message was received by Air India’s reservation office at Cochin well beyond the closing hours of the office ie. after 17.30 hrs. Therefore the complainant became aware of the cancellation of flight from Mumbai-Neirobi only when he reported for his flight to travel from Cochin-Mumbai on 8.7.2005. Air India’s airport office at Cochin rebooked the complainant on Kenya Airways flight on confirmed basis for travel from Mumbai to Neirobi. The reason why Kenyan Airways did not offer the seat to them despite having a confirmed seat is to be answered by them and not by Air India. The complainant was therefore, subsequently rebooked by Air India on South African Airways and he was provided with free hotel accommodation. Therefore no deficiency in service on the part of first respondent.
8. The 2nd respondent stated that they booked two flight tickets and they are not liable for the deficiency committed by first respondent and further not aware of the incidents happened.
9. Ext. P1 is the flight ticket and it is in the name of the complainant and also a confirmed ticket to travel from Mumbai to Neirobi. As per Ext. P2 these tickets were issued by 2nd respondent. The first respondent contended that they had arranged hotel accommodation at their own cost and it is evident from Ext. R3 and R4. Besides this in Ext. R3 the departure details are noted as flight KQ Z01 and station NBO, dt. 9 Jul. The first respondent stated that they had booked the Kenyan Airways and from Ext. R5 it is not evident that the complainant was booked in KQ Z01. Ext. R5 is only about the timing of the flights. The name of the complainant is written at the top of the document as ‘Bhavadasn/KMR (001) HDS 4P.’ So it doesn’t mean that he is reserved in KQ Z01. No other passengers’ name is seen in this document. So this cannot be considered as the passenger name record. From this it is clear that the complainant was not reserved for flight in Keniyan Airways and thus the contention against the Keniyan Airways will not stand. Thus first respondent showed deficiency in service by reserving seats in such a lengthy journey like South African Airways. The 2nd respondent has no liability as the cancellation of flight was by first respondent and all the arrangements were done by first respondent itself. As the complainant had not met any expenses regarding the booking and hotel accommodation a nominal compensation is ordered.
10. In the result, the complaint is allowed and the first respondent is directed to pay Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation and Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) as costs. Comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If the order is not complied in time the compensation amount will carry 12% interest from the date of order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 22nd day of October 2010.
