STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Smt. Parminder Kwatra, Wife of Sh. R. S. Kwatras (infact Kwatra), R/o Kothi No.1171, Phase 10, Mohali.

……Appellant/complainant

V e r s u s

1.    Air India, through its Manager, SCO No.162-164, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh – 160 034.

2.    Air India Ltd. Airlines House, 113, Gurudwara Rakabganj Road, New Delhi – 110 001, through its Managing Director.

3.    Kingfisher Airlines, through its Managing Director, Kingfisher Airlines Limited, The Qube, C.T.S. No.1498 A/2, 4^th Floor, M. V. Road, Marol, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 059, India.

              ....Respondents/Opposite Parties

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:   JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by: Sh. Pawan Kumar Longia, Advocate for the appellant.

                    Sh. S.R. Chaudhuri, Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2.

                    Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate Proxy for Sh. Y.S. Dhillon, Advocate for respondent no.3.

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

              This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.08.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant ).

2.             The facts, in brief, are that the complainant, being Manager (Legal), in LIC of India, Chandigarh, was nominated to attend the training programme at the National Law School of India University (hereinafter to be referred as the NLSIU only), Bengaluru, from 07.11.2011 to 12.11.2011, for which, she booked a connecting flight of the Opposite Parties, from Chandigarh to Bengaluru, via New Delhi, for 06.11.2011. On 06.11.2011, the complainant reached Chandigarh Airport, well in time, but the flight of Opposite Party No.3, was late, and, as such, after waiting for 3 hours, she was transferred to a flight, operated by Air India. She reached Delhi at 1.20 P.M. It was stated that she was again transferred to the next flight of Air India, which was to depart at 4.30 P.M., but the same was also late by two hours. Ultimately, the said flight departed from New Delhi at 6.30 P.M., and she reached Bengaluru at 8.45 PM. It was further stated that the complainant was informed at 9.15 P.M. at Bengaluru Airport, by the Officials of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 that her baggage was not sent in the flight, in question, and the same was lying at Delhi Airport, which would reach Bengaluru Airport, through the next flight. The complainant requested the officials of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, to arrange a room, in the nearby hotel, or to settle her in the lounge, but they did not do so. The baggage of the complainant reached Bengaluru Airport at 11.00 PM. The Airport Authorities arranged a taxi for the complainant, free-of-cost and she reached at the NLSIU, Bengaluru at 1.15 A.M., on 7.11.2011. It was further stated that, on account of delay, in the flight of Kingfisher Airlines i.e. Opposite Party No.3, at Chandigarh, for about three hours; delay in the next flight of Air India i.e. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, for about five hours, at New Delhi, and on account of non-delivery of baggage to the complainant, when the flight reached Bengaluru at 9.15 P.M., but only at about 11.00 P.M., she had to undergo a lot a mental agony and physical harassment. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were also deficient, in rendering service, by not arranging a room, in the nearby hotel or by not settling the complainant in the lounge, when she was made to wait at the Bengaluru Airport, as her baggage had not been received. A legal notice was also served upon the Opposite Parties, asking them to compensate the complainant, but to no avail. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1 lac, on account of mental agony and physical harassment; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.11,000/-.

3.             Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, in their joint written version, denied that their staff was not helpful, in arranging the room to the complainant. It was stated that the complainant met their Deputy Manager, Balachandran, who advised her to proceed to the venue of her training course, and the baggage would be delivered at her address, but, she insisted to wait at Bengaluru Airport. It was further stated that, all the courtesies were extended to the complainant, including dinner, tea/coffee etc., but she refused. It was further stated that the Officials of Air India, Bengaluru, arranged taxi for the complainant, free-of-cost, to reach the NLSIU, Bengaluru. It was further stated that since the flight was delayed from Leh (infact Srinagar) to New Delhi, and, as such, the complainant’s baggage was also delayed, but there was no loss or pilferage reported.  It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.             Opposite Party No.3, in its written version, stated that their flight No.IT-2636 was delayed, due to late arrival of Aircraft Reg. No. VT-DKJ, which was grounded at Delhi, due to technical reasons, and the same was intimated to the complainant, by sending SMS on her mobile phone, in the morning at 8.30 A.M. It was further stated that the complainant was accommodated, in the Air India flight, without payment of any extra charges. It was denied that the complainant was made to wait for three hours. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.3,  nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

5.             The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6.             After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above. 

7.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

8.             We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 

9.             Admittedly, the complainant booked a connecting flight of the Opposite Parties, from Chandigarh to Bengaluru, via New Delhi, for 06.11.2011. There is also, no dispute, about the factum that, on 06.11.2011, the complainant reached Chandigarh Airport, well in time. She was to board the flight of Kingfisher Airlines, but the same was late. She had to wait for three hours, at Chandigarh Airport and, thereafter, transferred to the flight of Air India, without charging any extra amount. The question arises, as to whether,  the delay, in the flight of Kingfisher Airlines, for which the complainant had booked the ticket from Chandigarh to New Delhi, was on account of the reasons, beyond the control of Opposite Party No.3 or not. Annexure RW-III, is the report of the Engineers of Opposite Party No.3, wherein it is mentioned that the flight was delayed due to technical reason (LOWER AIR BEACON AND LH STROB LIGHT N/A). Mr. A. Hamid, S/o Late Mr. Suleman Khan, Deputy General Manager-Legal of Opposite Party No.3, submitted his affidavit, by way of evidence, and proved this report-Annexure RW-III. The Airlines are required to take into consideration, the safety of the passengers. Since, due to technical reason, referred to above, there was delay of about three hours, in the flight of Opposite Party No.3, and, even in the morning, as is evident, from the evidence, on record, SMS was sent to the complainant, at about 8.30 A.M., about delay, well before the scheduled departure time, it could not be said that Opposite Party No.3, in any way, was negligent or deficient, in rendering service. Had the delay, in the flight of Opposite Party No.3, which was to take off, from Chandigarh Airport to New Delhi, been due to the reason, other than technical reason, referred to above, the matter would have been different. Since Opposite Party No.3, was neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice, the District Forum, was, right, in holding, that the complainant was not entitled to claim any compensation from it. The order of the District Forum, to this extent, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.

10.           Now coming to the liability of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, it may be stated here, that there was a delay of about 2^½ hours in reaching the flight of Air India i.e. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, at New Delhi Airport, which, ultimately, the complainant boarded and reached Bengaluru, at about 9.15 P.M. No reason has been assigned, by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, as to why, there was delay of about 2½ hours, in reaching their flight, which ultimately, the complainant took from New Delhi for Bengaluru. Not only this, the baggage of the complainant was not transferred, in the flight of Air India, which she boarded. When she reached Bengaluru, at about 9.15 P.M., she was told by the Officials of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, that the said baggage had not been sent in the said flight. She had to wait at Bengaluru Airport, for about two hours, to get her baggage. It was the duty of the Officials of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, to provide her a comfortable place, in the lounge or to arrange a room for her, in the nearby hotel, so as to make her stay comfortable, for the period, she had to wait at Bengaluru Airport, for receipt of her baggage. Ultimately, she was handed over the baggage, at about 11 o’clock, at night, at Bengaluru Airport, when it was brought by another flight of Air India. No doubt, taxi was arranged for the complainant, by the Officials of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, to reach the NLSIU, Bengaluru, yet, that could not be said to be sufficient, to compensate her, for the tremendous mental agony and physical harassment caused to her, on account of delay of 2½ hours, in reaching the flight of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, at New Delhi Airport, without any rhyme or reason, and due to non-handing over the baggage to her, when she reached Bengaluru Airport, and, on the other hand, delivering the same after about two hours. One can well imagine the plight of a passenger, especially a lady, who reached Bengaluru Airport, at about 9.15 P.M., and had to wait for her baggage, which had not been brought, in the flight to that place, on account of the acts of omission and commission of the Officials of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. For this mental agony and physical harassment, the complainant was required to be compensated. The District Forum was wrong, in not touching this aspect of the matter. In our considered opinion, compensation in the sum of Rs.10,000/-, if awarded to the complainant, that would meet the ends of justice. The complainant, is, thus entitled to the compensation aforesaid.  

11.           No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.

12.           In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, to the extent indicated above, being not based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, suffers from illegality and perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

13.           For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted, with costs qua respondents no.1 and 2. The order of the District Forum is set aside qua them. Respondents No.1 and 2/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, are directed as under:-

                     (i).   To pay compensation to the complainant, in the sum of Rs.10,000/-, for causing her mental agony and physical harassment.

                    (ii).   To pay cost of litigation, to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.5,000/-.

                  (iii).   The amount of compensation, in the sum of Rs.10,000/-,  referred to above, shall be paid by Respondents No.1 and 2/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, jointly and severally, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which they shall be liable to pay the same, alongwith interest @9% P.A., from the date of default, till realization, besides payment of costs.

14.           The appeal against respondent no.3/Opposite Party No.3, stands dismissed, with no order as to costs.

15.           Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

16.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

November 1, 2012

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Rg