DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

==========

Jagesh Singla s/o Late Sh. Prem Chand Singla, R/o B-1139, Mittal Street, Rajpura, District Patiala, Punjab.

                                                        ---Complainant

V E R S U S

[1]     Air India, Jeewan Bharti Building, Cannaught Circus, New Delhi, through its General Manager.

[2]     Anand Travels, SCO No. 45-46-47, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.

---Opposite Parties

BEFORE:       MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                 PRESIDING MEMBER

                        SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU      MEMBER

Argued By:       Sh. Arun Singla, Adv for the Complainant.

Sh. Yogesh Saini, Adv for OP No.1.

Ms. Sarpreet Kaur Ahluwalia, Adv for OP No.2.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.              Factually speaking, the Complainant had purchased a return air ticket from Delhi to Los Angles (hereinafter referred to as ‘LA’ for short) from OP No.2. As per the schedule, the Complainant had to depart from New Delhi to LA on 6.8.2008 and was to return from LA on 1.10.2008. 

                The Complainant has alleged that on or around 24.9.2008, he came to know that the flight by Air India was cancelled, but he was not able to confirm from the OPs whether this fact was correct. Eventually, he came to know only from OP No.2 that his flight had been canceled and rescheduled for 3.10.2008. An e-mail was sent to the Complainant by OP No.2, confirming his ticket for 3.10.2008 (Annex.C-2).

                When the Complainant reached the Airport on 3.10.2008, along with the copy of the e-mail, the officials of Singapore Airlines whom he was now booked refused to allow him travel from the said flight. When the Complainant contacted the officials of OP No.1, an air ticket, in his name, was released. But this was only 20 minutes before the time of departure. Hence, the officials of the Singapore Airlines flatly refused to allow the Complainant to board the flight. Feeling harassed, the Complainant returned from the Airport and again took up the matter with the OPs. He was eventually, made to travel on 04.10.2008, without seeking any confirmation from him.

                The Complainant has alleged that he had purchased an air ticket for the Air India flight, but instead he was forced to travel by Singapore airlines and the flight was not even a direct flight. The flight left LA for Singapore; the Complainant had to wait for 14 hrs. at the Singapore Airport and only thereafter, he was put on an onward flight to New Delhi. The Complainant eventually, reached Delhi Airport on 5.10.2008. 

                Alleging clear unfair trade practice, breach of contract, unnecessary delay and deficiency in service, the Complainant has filed this complaint, praying for compensation for the harassment caused.

2.              After admission of the complaint, notices were sent to the OPs.

3.              OP No.1 in reply has said that the Delhi - LA flight had been discontinued after 10.09.2008. The Complainant was hence allotted a seat on the earliest available alternative flight of Singapore Airlines under the code sharing arrangement with Singapore Airlines. This date of travel was 3.10.2008. The officials of the OP No.1 at LA had also informed the Complainant regarding discontinuation of the flight and allotment of alternative flight, well in advance i.e. on 24.09.2008.

                OP No.1 has placed reliance on Carriage Rules, which specifically state that carrier undertakes to use its best efforts to carry the passenger and baggage with reasonable dispatch. Times shown in timetables or elsewhere are not guaranteed and form no part of this contract. Carrier may without notice substitute alternate carriers or aircraft, and may alter or omit stopping places shown on the ticket in case of necessity. Schedules are subject to change without notice. Carrier assumes no responsibility for making connections.

                The e-ticket provided to the travelers clearly stated as under:-

“Carriage and other service provided by the carrier are subject to conditions of carriage which are hereby incorporated by reference. These conditions may be obtained from the issuing carrier.”

                Relying on the above Rules, OP No.1 has stated that the complaint needs dismissal, as there is no prima-facie cause of action made out against them for deficiency in service.

                On merits, OP No.1 has admitted the factual position and stated that the Complainant was given a seat on the alternative flight on 3.10.2008. They have stated that the Complainant has not brought any cogent evidence to show that he was not allowed to board the flight on 3.10.2008 and that he boarded the flight on 4.10.2008. OP No.1 has, however, admitted the fact that the Complainant reached Delhi on 5.10.2008. Thus, denying all other allegations of the Complainant, OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.              OP No.2 in reply has stated that they are only a Travel Agency and their role was only to provide valid tickets to the Complainant. The ticket provided to the Complainant was valid. The alleged deficiency, if any, is on the part of OP No.1 or Singapore Airlines only.   

                OP No.2 has further stated that they had assisted the Complainant, when his flight had been cancelled and informed him that his flight had been re-scheduled for 3.10.2008. Denying all other averments, OP No.2 has, also prayed for dismissal of the complaint against them. 

5.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

6.              We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

7.              The contention between the parties is regarding alleged deficiency in service, due to cancellation of a flight and the harassment caused to the Complainant, due to this cancellation, as well as re-schedulement of his trip.

8.              The Complainant was booked to travel on a direct flight operated by OP No.1 from LA to New Delhi on 1.10.2008. As the flight had been discontinued, the OP No.1, under a code sharing agreement with Singapore Airlines, had put the Complainant on a Singapore Airlines flight for 3.10.2008. OP No.2 had assisted in this procedure and the Complainant had been informed, well in advance.

9.              The Complainant has alleged that he was not allowed to travel on this flight, but was only allowed to travel on the same flight, the next day. There is no document on record to show the actual date of departure of the Complainant. However, it is evident that the Complainant reached New Delhi on 5.10.2008, after a stop over of 14 hrs. at Singapore Airport. This stop over was because the direct flight had been discontinued and the flight provided was a connecting flight only.

10.            The Complainant has stated, in his complaint, that no officials of either Singapore Airlines or the OPs came to assist him at Singapore Airport to make him comfortable. The OPs have remained silent about this averment. It needs to be mentioned here that as per Carriage Rules, referred to above, by the OP No.1, any flight may be cancelled/ rescheduled and this cancellation/ re-schedulement should not be attributed as a deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by the Airlines. Hence, this allegation of the Complainant would hold ground only if the change had not been informed to him and he had to suffer at the last minute. He has himself stated that he came to know about the change/ cancellation on 24.09.2008. 

                However, the stop over in Singapore Airport of 14 hrs. could have been made comfortable for the Complainant by the OP No.1, by providing him a decent place to stay, as well as refreshments. The Complainant has stated that he had to sit at the Airport for all the 14 hrs. OP No.1 has not denied this averment, nor have they stated that they took any steps to make the Complainant comfortable. It is evident that they handed over their passenger to another airline and choose to remain silent about his comfort after that. In such a situation, the Complainant needs to be compensated by OP No.1 for the harassment caused to him. In the given circumstances, we allow the present complaint against OP No.1 and direct OP No.1 to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the harassment caused due to being unattended at Singapore Airport.

11.            However, the complaint qua OP No.2 is dismissed, as they are only a service provider for air tickets. The ticket provided by them to the Complainant is a valid ticket and there are no allegations of wrong ticket and overcharging by them. Hence, there is no deficiency on their part.

12.            The aforesaid order be complied with by the OP No.1, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, they would be liable to pay the aforesaid amount, along with interest @ 12% p.a. to the Complainant, from the date of order, till the date of actual payment.

13.               Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

8^th December 2011.                                                                                       

Sd-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)