Delhi

East Delhi

CC/267/2019

SATISH CHANDER JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

AIR INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

04 Jul 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 267/2019

 

	Satish Chander Jain D-102, “PURVASHA”, Anand Lok Mayurvihar, Phase – I, Delhi – 110091.	….Complainant
Versus
1.           2.	The Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi   Chairman & Managing Director Air India Ltd. Airlines House, 113 Gurudwar Rakabganj Road, New Delhi – 110001.	……OP1           ……OP2

 

Date of Institution: 23.08.2019

Judgment Reserved on: 04.07.2023

Judgment Passed on: 04.07.2023

               

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

 

JUDGMENT

1. By this judgment the Commission would dispose off the complaint of the complainant with respect to deficiency in service by not providing the pre-allotted seats to the complainant in the Air India Flight.
2. Brief facts as stated by the complainant in the complaint are that the complainant and his wife have booked two, on line seats on Air India flight from Delhi to Chicago in flight number 127 scheduled to leave on 21.05.2016 and return ticket for 21.07.2016 vide Air India Flight No. AI 126. The complainant also requested for pre-reserved seats for both flights, that is onward and inward journey and paid Rs.14000/- in cash towards advance seats booking charges and he was assigned seat number 17 B and 17 C however, when the complainant reached at the check-in counter, he was given Seat No. 22J and 28K instead of pre-reserved seats No. 17B and 17C to which he informed the Air India Officials who told him that as per the information at the Check-in Counter Seats No.22J and 28K have been assigned to them and his request for the reserved seat was declined however, in the Air Craft the Air India Cabin Crew changed his seats from 22J and 28K respectively to 19K and 19J and it is submitted that complainant is an eighty years old person with total bilateral knee replacement surgery of both knees and suffering from age related ailments and his wife is also 75 of years of age and they had no option except to take the seat which were offered to them at that point of times which caused great humiliation to them before other passengers, apart from mental suffering, agonies and physical pain. Thereafter he wrote various complaints to the various authorities including to CMD Air India, Hon’ble Minister, Civil Aviation, Directorate of Public Grievances and Secretary attached with Minister of Civil Aviation but of no consequence and ultimately he has filed present complaint, praying that OP be directed to refund entire amounts of ticket paid by complainant alongwith market interest and compensation Rs.500000/-.
3. OP has been served and filed the reply taking preliminary objections that the complaint is false and fabricated baseless and afterthought. The same is abuse and misuse  of the process of law, complainant has concealed the material facts from the preview of the court and is liable to dismissed as being frivolous. It is submitted that true facts are, that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP2 and the complainant and his wife had booked two seats on Air India from Delhi to Chicago and complainant has availed the service of OP and had flown to America at the scheduled time and date, without any objections and even otherwise complaint is barred by limitation.
4. On merits it stated that there has been no deficiency or negligence or misconduct on the part of OPs while providing the services to the complainant, however the booking of the tickets by the complainant and the amount was paid for seat allocation is not disputed, but it is specifically denied that they were assigned seat No. 17B and 17C for this journey from Delhi to Chicago and also for return ticket from Chicago to Delhi. It is further submitted that seats were certainly reserved in the name of complainant against the payments on the said date but due to some unfortunate circumstances the reserved seats were later on  changed to 22J and 28K and subsequently the cabin crew of the OP on board changed the seats and allocated two seats and even mentioned the same of the boarding pass seat No.19J and 19K and as such neither there is any harassment to the complainant nor there is any deficiency in the part of OP. It is accordingly prayed that the complaint of the complainant be dismissed.
5. Complainant has filed his own evidence and OP has filed evidence of Shri Vijay Kunj, Assistant Manager Commercial of OP2. OP2 has also filed written arguments. The Commission has heard the arguments of complainant and OP and has also perused the record.
6. The issue is only with respect to change of seats number from 17B and 17C and the secondary issue is with respect to limitation. Firstly taken the cause of action and limitation part. The cause of action with respect to the present complaint arose when the complainant reached airport and came to know that his seats 17B and 17C has been changed to seats No. 22J and 28K and this happened on 21.05.2016. The complainant was out of India and returned to Delhi on 11.07.2016. The present complaint has been filed on 23.08.2019 that is after about 3 years and one month after the cause of action had arisen. The statutory period to file complaint under section 24 A of CP Act 1986  of Consumer Protection Act is two year, Section 24 A CP Act 1986 read as under: 

24A. Limitation period

(1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:

Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.

7. Therefore, the present complaint case has been filed by the complainant is not within limitation period and is filed beyond the limitation period and is liable to be rejected. Once the complaint is time barred the Commission of opinion that there would be no necessity to refer any opinion on merit. Accordingly, complaint of the complainant is rejected.
3. opy of the order be supplied/sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced on 04.07.2023.