BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Ramandeep Kaur daughter of Sukhchain Singh, r/o VPO, Satnaur, Teh : Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur.

…..Complainant

                 V E R S U S

1]  American Travel and Tours Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.91-92-93, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh – 160022.

2]  Etihad Airways Head Office in India : 2^nd floor, Narain Manzil, 23 Barakhamba Road, Post Code – 110 001, New Delhi, India (Head office in India).

                      ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:   SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL        

PRESIDING MEMBER

         DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA 

MEMBER

Argued by:   Sh.H.S.Jugait, Counsel for complainant.

Sh.Vipul Bisnoi, Proxy Counsel for Sh.B.S.Sudan, Counsel for OP-1.

OP-2 exparte.

PER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

         Briefly stated, the complainant, on 23.11.2011, booked airline tickets of OP No.2 Airways, through OP No.1, for the onward & return journey from New Delhi to Sydney and Sydney to New Delhi. The flight was departed on 24.11.2011 from New Delhi to its first destination Abu Dhabi and the seat number 21-A was allotted. It has stated that after stay in Abu Dhabi, when the flight took off for its final destination i.e. Sydney, the plane was changed during this period and new seat No.38-K was allotted to her. On the way to Sydney, she was served meal, which was non-vegetarian, while on her ticket, it was specifically mentioned as under :-

“On Board : Meal

ASIAN VEGETARIAN MEAL CONFIRMED FOR KAUR/RAMANDEEP MS”

         It is also stated that when the meal was served, the complainant specifically asked the air-hostess twice “Is this meal vegetarian”, to which the air-hostess replied “Yes”. The said meal was consumed by the complainant and, thereafter, the complainant enquired from the air staff about the contents of the meal served and they replied that it is Non-Vegetarian, which was meant for seat No.33-A. When the complainant enquired every detail relating to the meal, it transpired that it was Halal Meat, which was slaughtered the Muslim way. The complainant is Sikh and vegetarian by nature, so it was quite hard to face this fact that she consumed a non-vegetarian item, which is totally prohibited and against her faith, religion and ethics. Due to the negligence on the part of OP No.2, complainant’s religious sentiments are hurt; she suffered great mental agony, tension and harassment. Hence, this complaint.

2]       OP No.1 filed the reply and admitted the booking of tickets of complainant for the said journey. It is submitted that what was happened & transpired during the course of flight from Abu Dhabi to Sydney, cannot possible be within the knowledge of the replying OP. The allegation regarding serving of non-vegetarian meal is denied. Denying all other material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service on its part, OP-1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

         OP-2 did not appear despite service, hence proceeded against exparte vide order dated 26.6.2012.  

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]       We have heard the learned Counsel for the complainant, ld.Counsel for OP No.1 and have also perused the record.

5]       Annexure C-3, copy of the air-ticket, proves that the complainant had undertaken the onward & return journey from New Delhi - Sydney and Sydney – New Delhi, through OP No.2 Airways.

6]       The main grouse of the complainant is that after stay in Abu Dhabi, when the flight took off for its final destination – Sydney, she was served non-vegetarian food, inspite of the fact that she had specifically opted/ordered for Asian Vegetarian food on board, which has rightly/specifically been mentioned on the air ticket. It is also contended that due to said deficient/negligent act of OP NO.2, the religious sentiments, faith & ethics of the complainant were hurt, besides causing her mental agony, tension and harassment.          

7]       After going through the facts & circumstances of the present case and perusing the documents, it has been made out that the plea of the complainant that she had specially opted for the vegetarian food on the said flight, which is proved from Ann.C-1, wherein it has been specifically mentioned as under”-

“On Board : Meal

ASIAN VEGETARIAN MEAL CONFIRMED FOR KAUR/RAMANDEEP MS”

8]       Since the type of meal was specifically written on the booking ticket, then it was the legal duty & obligation of OP NO.2 to provide the requisite/necessary services to the complainant/passenger.

9]       The non-appearance of the OP No.2, in response to the notice of the complaint, proves that it did not want to say anything in its defence and therefore, the allegations of the complainant are correct.

10]      From Ann.C-3, it prima facie speaks for itself about their deficient act, by not adhering to the type of food so opted and instead served non-vegetarian food to the complainant.  Moreover, the OP No.2 failed to appear and produce any evidence to controvert their negligent & careless act.  Thus, the negligence & deficiency in service on the part of OP NO.2 is established.

11]      It is important to mention here that the Fora, having treating the genesis and history of Consumer Protection Act, seeks to provide for the greater protection of the interest of the Consumers. Such aspect was considered and highlighted in the cases of Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K.Gupta, III(1993) CPJ 7 (SC); Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital, III(2000) CPJ 1 (SC); Spring Meadows Hospital V. Harjol Ahluwalia, I (1998) CPJ 1 (SC) and India Photogrpahic Company Ltd. V. H.D.Shourie, II(1999) CPJ 36 (SC).

12]      Therefore, in a case where negligence is evident, the principle of res ipsa loquitur operates and the complainant does not have to prove anything, as the things (res) prove itself.  Moreover, in such a case, it is for the Opposite Party to prove that it has taken due care and done its duty in order to repel the charge of negligence.

13]      The principle of res ipsa loquitur is fully applicable to the present case.

14]      Apart from this, the OP NO.2 is also covered under the vicarious liability. Though it was the fault & negligence of the Airhostess of OP NO.2, as a result, wrong food was served to the complainant, but even for that wrongful act, the OP NO.2 is fully liable being covered under the vicarious liability, whereby the Master is liable for the act of servant in the course of discharging & performing his duty. Hence, it is proved that the OPs remained grossly deficient in rendering proper services to the complainant.

15]      Furthermore, the “deficiency”, according to Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contact or otherwise in relation to any service.

16]      Henceforth, judged from every angle, and entirety of the case, the crux of the problem, which gave rise to the dispute between the parties, is certainly due to the negligence, fault and deficiency on the part of OP No.2 in rendering improper services by serving the complainant non-vegetarian food instead of vegetarian, as opted.  It is also proven fact that the sentiments, faith and religious ethics of the complainant were hurt, causing her mental agony, tension as well as great mental trauma for which the OP NO.2 deserves to be heavily penalized.  We therefore allow this complaint and direct the OP NO.2 to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand only) to the complainant for causing her mental agony, tension and trauma.  OP NO.2 is also directed to pay her litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-.

         This order be complied with by OP No.2 within a period of 30 days from the date of its receipt, failing which it shall be liable to pay the above awarded amount of Rs.50,000/-  along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint i.e. 02.05.2012 till its actual payment, besides paying litigation costs.

17]      The OP No.1 has no role in the said act of OP No.2, being only the ticket booking agent, who booked the complainant’s ticket for the said journey. Therefore, the complaint qua OP NO.1 stands dismissed.

18]      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.