DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

P.K. Daga s/o Late Sh. Bansidhar Daga, Resident of #5 Merlin Park, Kolkata.

                                                 ---Complainant.

V E R S U S

Air India, through its Managing Director, SCO No. 162-164, Sector 34, Chandigarh.

---Opposite Party.

BEFORE:          SH. LAKHMAN SHARMA               PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA             MEMBER

                    SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU          MEMBER

Argued By:  Sh. Tajender K. Joshi, Adv. for the Complainant.

                                Sh. S.R. Chaudhuri, Advocate for the Opposite Party.

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1]           Complainant has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Party, on the ground that the Complainant is registered with the Opposite Party as a frequent traveler under No. F 042152 (Golden Edge). As the Complainant has numerous business engagements spread over to different cities namely Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh. The Complainant on one such visit to Chandigarh got a ticket booked from Chandigarh itself on 18.05.2011, for his travel from Delhi to Kolkata on 22.5.2011. That the said electronic ticket no. 985153224402 was subscribed for on 18.5.2011 and the same was confirmed for flight no. 1762 departing on 22.5.2011 from Delhi at 10.15 Hrs. The said ticket was booked through M/s Sandal Travels Pvt. Ltd., SCO No. 83-84, Sec. 34-A, Chandigarh by paying an amount of Rs.5902/- by cash. The confirmation number as provided by the Opposite Party was YS8333. The departure time of the said flight from IGI Airport Delhi was 10:15 AM and was to reach Kolkata at 12:25 PM.

              As the Complainant intended to reach Kolkata before lunch hours because of his pressing business engagements preferred to travel by this flight. The Complainant reached the Airport Terminal No.3 at around 9.00 A.M. on 22.5.2011. However, inspite of his having a confirmed ticket for Flight No. A1 762, was not allowed to board on the ground that the seat is not available. An endorsement to this effect was made by the employee of the Opposite Party on e-ticket receipt (Annexure Ex.C1). On repeated persuasion of the Complainant the Opposite Party made an alternate arrangement for the Complainant on Air India Flight No. A1 764 having departure time 4.30 PM and scheduled arrival at Kolkata was 6:40 PM. The copy of the Boarding Pass is annexed as Annexure Ex.C-2.

              The Complainant alleges that due to this act of the Opposite Party he failed to reach Kolkata in time to attend his important business engagements. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, in not allowing him to board the plane even though he had a valid confirmed ticket for the same, seeks the following relief against the Opposite Party:-

(i) Rs.3.00 lac on account of loss suffered due to cancellation of important meetings at Kolkata.

(ii) Rs.2.00 lac on account of mental agony, humiliation and harassment.

(iii) Rs.25,000/- on account of cost of litigation.  

2]           On notice, Opposite Party has filed it reply/ version contesting the claim of the Complainant and has taken preliminary objections to the effect that the Complainant does not have a genuine grievance as he failed to reach the Airport in time and was marked as “NO SHOW” Passenger. This particular situation only arises with the passenger who with a confirmed booking fails to show up at the counter in time. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party on this count. It is also mentioned that there was over booking in the economy class of this particular flight and there were as many as 17 passengers who were “No Show Passengers” on the said flight. The Plane went with full load and the Opposite Party claims that no airline would like to leave a full paying passenger behind.    

              On merits, Opposite Party has filed its para wise reply to all the averments of the present complaint stating that the Opposite Party did not reply to para 1 and 2 on account of lack of evidence. Even in reply to para 3 Opposite Party claims that it had no knowledge of any such happening as it was not disclosed to it earlier. In reply to para 4 & 5 the same is admitted to the extent of it being a part of record and does not require any answer. The Opposite Party has also cited surprise on its part claiming that an experience frequent flyer like the Complainant failed to plan his business engagements without keeping a reasonable gap between his meetings and the schedule of flight. While replying to para 6 the Opposite Party claims that even if it is believed that the Complainant reached the IGI Airport at 9.00 AM but as he failed to report at Terminal No. 3 of the Airport and was a “No Show” passenger till 9:22 AM, his seat was released to another passenger and he was put on a standby and was allotted Seat No.10-A. As the Complainant failed to turn up even by 9:30 hence the last passenger was accommodated at 9:40 AM as per Annexure D-1.  Further, in reply to para 15 the Opposite Party has categorically stated that as per the disclosures made by the Complainant he actually resides in Kolkata and as the cause of action has arose at New Delhi at the time of departure, hence the jurisdiction of the Chandigarh Forum is not attracted in the present case. The Opposite Party claims that as they have brought on record a concrete evidence to prove their point, hence the present complaint deserves to be dismissed, with heavy cost.

3]           Parties led their respective evidences.

4]           Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the Opposite Party, the evidence of the parties and with the able assistance of the ld. Counsel for the parties, we have come to the following conclusions.

5]           The Complainant in para 6 (page 3 of the complaint) of the complaint has specifically mentioned that he had reached the Airport at about 9.00 AM on 22.5.2011 while the departure time of the concerned fight for which he had a confirmed ticket was to depart at 10:15 AM. As per the claim of the Complainant, he had reported as much as 1 hour prior to the departure of the flight. In the same paragraph, he has further mentioned that inspite of holding a confirmed ticket, he was not allowed to board on the said flight on the ground that the seat is not available. While claiming this aspect the Complainant has further cited the endorsement made by the employee of the Opposite Party on the copy of the e-ticket which has been annexed at Annexure C-1. The endorsement cited by the Complainant reads as under: -

“Seat is not available.

PAS Standing for one hour.”

However, the employee who has scribbled these words has failed to mention the time and date when the same was written down on the e-ticket of the Complainant. The Opposite Party has not answered this issue at all but has circumvented this issue in their reply to this para of the complaint. The Opposite Party has totally ignored this aspect and claimed that the Complainant was a “NO SHOW” passenger.  As per the disclosures of the Opposite Party, the passenger was marked ‘NO SHOW’ at 9.22 AM and his seat was released to some other passenger and was put on a standby mode till 9:30 AM and was allotted Seat No.10-A. Subsequently, some other passenger was accommodated on this Seat No.10-A at 9:40 AM as per Annexure D-1. However, the Opposite Party has failed to bring on record any official document to prove that what the actual reporting time was for the passengers for a flight departing at a scheduled time. In the absence of any such specific time schedule for reporting before the departure time, the entire reply of the Opposite Party is vague and cannot be believed.  

6]           It is also important to visit the affidavit of Mr. M.R. Jindal, Acting Station Manager, Air India (NACIL), Chandigarh, wherein in para 2 of preliminary objections it is submitted as under:-

“It may be added with respect that on 22.5.2011, there was over booking in the economy class. There were 17 (seventeen) “No Show” passengers on that flight. The Plane went with full load. No airline would like to leave a full paying passenger behind.”

It is clear from the above disclosures that as the flight in question was over booked and even as per the record of the Opposite Party there were as many as seventeen (17) “No Show” passengers, but still the flight went with a full load shows the modus operandi of the Opposite Party so as to ensure that the Plane does not go with a vacant seat. The opposite party is also silent on the point that as to what extent the said flight was over booked. This disclosure would have established that whether there were still some passengers who had showed up on time and were left behind along with the “No Show” passengers.  All such flights are probably over booked as a matter of Policy by the opposite party. We feel that in such an attempt there is always a possibility of some passengers being left in the lurch. This practice of the Opposite Party is nothing but an unfair trade practice on their part, as well as a deficiency in service towards their Passengers.   

7]           Though the Opposite Party has submitted detailed explanations and the manner in which the Opposite Party try and adjust the left out passengers in subsequent flights. While submitting these details, they have also attached a number of documents Annexure D-1 to D-3. But we feel as the Opposite Party has failed to specifically mention the time when this entire exercise is put into motion by the Opposite Party, in the absence of such a deadline all such details are of no relevance.  We feel that all these details have been made available only to confuse the entire matter rather than helping this Forum to reach a concrete conclusion.

              It is important to quote the observations of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in the case titled Air India and Others Versus Reema Sawhny, III (2008) CPJ 275, wherein it is held that boarding denied to a confirmed ticket holder – contention, flight being over booked- officials of Air India to be blamed for over booking of flight – Complainant shifted to another flight – harassment suffered – deficiency in service proved – compensation awarded.

              In a similar matter, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case titled Indian Airlines Limited and Another Versus Dr. Savita Malhotra & Others, II (2009) CPJ 354 NC, wherein it is held that boarding denied to a confirmed ticket holder – Airline provided accommodation to the Complainant allowed them to fly the next day on same ticket. Compensation along with cost awarded upheld.

8]           The reply of the Opposite Party also mentions that the fight in question instead of leaving at 10:15 AM which was the scheduled time of departure had actually left at 10:55 AM i.e. as much as 40 minutes late.  Another interesting aspect has come to light that the Seat No. 23-A on which the Complainant was adjusted on flight A1 764 was later on changed to Seat No. 14-D. We feel that the Opposite Party was again making such adjustments at the cost of confirmed ticket holders of Flight A1 764. As such, it seems that the Opposite Party is regularly following this trait which is not a healthy business practice and is definitely a deficiency in service towards its Customers.

9]           The Opposite Party has also submitted Annexure D-3 which includes three pages. A close scrutiny of 1^st page of this document under the heading “Ground Handling Department Log Book” though mentions the date as 22.5.2011 but the time is not mentioned. The last paragraph of this document speaks as under:-

“------ likely to be increased due over booking in economy class. Advised catering accordingly.”  

It is clearly revealed from this document that it is not only the Terminal Manager who is in the knowledge of over booking in the concerned Flight, but the information was also available to the Ground Handling Department responsible for the catering of the passengers, which clearly shows that it was not on single occasion that such a thing has happened, but is actually a regular practice of the Opposite Party to over book their flights and then declare the excess passengers as “No Show” passengers, in order to even deny them the refreshments they were entitled to as mentioned on page 1 of Annexure D-1 (2^nd last para). Such a practice is also an unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party and deserves to be addressed in a just and proper manner.  A similar matter too had come up for observations in the case tilted Air India and Others Versus Reema Sawhny, mentioned above, wherein the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh, decided on 14.11.2007, had held the officials of Air India blameworthy for over booking of flights and causing harassment to the unsuspecting customers. It is observed that this practice of over booking of the flights is still continuing and unidentified number of passengers are being put through such rigors for no fault on their part. Such a practice of the Opposite Party definitely falls under the clause of “Unfair Trade Practice” as mentioned under Section 2(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

10]          It is important to mention that from the above observations we find a definite act of unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party. It is also clear that by indulging in such a practice, the Opposite Party is definitely causing loss to an unspecified as well as unidentified number of their customers. Hence, while proceedings under Section 14 (hb) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, we direct the Opposite Party to deposit Rs.2,00,000/- as fine with the State Legal Services Authority, U.T. Chandigarh.

11]          Hence, in the light of above observations, the present complaint is allowed and the Opposite Party is also directed to pay Rs.25,000/- to the Complainant on account of deficiency in service and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

12]          The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt; thereafter, the Opposite Party shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the amount of compensation of Rs.25,000/- only, till it is paid.

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

Announced

24^th January, 2012.                                                                   

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER