KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 176/2016
JUDGMENT DATED: 15.11.2024
(Against the Order in C.C. 213/2015of DCDRC, Ernakulam)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
Sibi Simon, S/o Simon, Eenthumkattil House, Piravom P.O., Pin-686 664.
(By Adv. Tom Joseph)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
M/s Air India, Collis Estate, M.G. Road, Ernakulam, Kochi-16 represented by its Managing Director.
(By Adv. V.K. Mohan Kumar and Adv. M/s Menon and Pai)
JUDGMENT
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
The appellant is the complainant and the respondent is the opposite party in C.C. No. 213/2015 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (for short “the District Commission”).
2. The appellant purchased four tickets for the journey from Kochi to Delhi and another four tickets for the connection flight from Delhi to Manchester for travelling on 24.04.2014. Since the flight from Kochi to Delhi was delayed for 3½ hours, the appellant could not board the Swiss Air flight from Delhi to Manchester on 24.04.2014. Therefore, the appellant had to purchase four tickets from British Airways for the journey from Delhi to London by paying an amount of Rs. 2,54,870/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy only). The appellant had also spent an amount of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) for travelling in a taxi from London to Manchester as the British Airways flight landed only in London instead of Manchester. Therefore, the appellant claimed Rs. 2,74,870/- towards refund of the ticket fare and taxi fare together. The appellant also claimed a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only) for the mental agony and hardships suffered by him.
3. The respondent filed version contending that the delay was caused due to engineering reasons. The respondent was not aware of anything about the connection flight stated by the appellant. The respondent had provided refreshment to the appellant during the period of delay.
4. Before the District Commission, no oral evidence was adduced by the appellant or the respondent. Exhibits A1 to A4 were marked for the appellant. Exhibits B1 and B2 were marked for the respondent. After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission directed the respondent to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as compensation and costs together to the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till realization. Being aggrieved by the inadequacy of the amount ordered by the District Commission, this appeal has been filed.
5. Heard both sides and perused the records.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had to take fresh tickets for travelling from Delhi to London as the appellant could not board the flight from Delhi to Manchester, as the flight from Cochin to Delhi was delayed by 3½ hours. The appellant also spent Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) towards taxi fare from London to Manchester as the flight was landed in London instead of Manchester.
7. The District Commission correctly found that the appellant did not produce any boarding pass to show that the appellant had travelled from Delhi to London in British Airways. That apart, there is no contention in the complaint that the appellant did not get the refund of the amount for the tickets booked by the appellant for the journey in Swiss Airways. In view of the above, the District Commission granted compensation only for the mental agony with interest.
8. Having gone through the order impugned, we are satisfied that the amount of compensation ordered by the District Commission was just and reasonable and in the said circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the same.
In the result, this appeal stands dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their respective costs.
JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT
jb RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
