DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 49/2013
1. Col. Baljeet Singh Ahluwalia (Retd.)
S/o Sh. Harjeet Singh Ahluwalia
2. Mrs. Lily Ahluwalia
W/o Col. Baljit Singh Ahluwalia (Retd.)
Both R/o B-21, Sector 49
Noida – 201301, U.P. ...Complainants
Versus
1. The Director
Anushree Air Transport Pvt. Ltd.
E-12, Hauz Khas, New Delhi
2. The Director
Lufthansa Airlines
Bldg. No. 10, Tower B, 12th Floor
Phase II, DLF Cyber City
Gurgaon, Haryana - 120001
3. The Director
United Airlines
Cyber Green, Tower C
2nd Floor, DLF Phase III
Gurgaon, Haryana - 120001 …Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 28.01.2013 Date of Order : 19.09.2016
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Briefly stated, the case of the complainants is that Complainant-1 had purchased two air tickets bearing Nos. ETKT2209094734920 and ETKT2209094734924 from OP-1 for himself and his wife i.e. complainant-2. These tickets were issued by OP-1 for travelling from Newark to New Delhi. The scheduled departure from Newark vide Flight no. UA 82 L was on 15th April 2012 at 20.30 hrs. The booking reference was issued by OP-3. The complainant-1 was travelling with his wife who is said to have been ailing senior citizen. The complainants state that they were informed on BA system at around 19.45 hrs that due to late arrival of aircrafts from Beijing (China), the flight will take off at 20.50 hrs (20 minutes behind schedule); that this was followed by another announcement at 21.30 hrs that this flight is further delayed with advise to wait for further announcement and finally the boarding was done at midnight on 15.4.2012; that after sitting in the aircraft for more than 45 minutes it was announced that the flight is cancelled as the crew time of flight has exceeded dissimulated flying time of 18 hrs and, therefore, the flight is expected to leave the next day i.e. 16.4.2012 and the time will be informed later. Vouchers for the hotel will be given and thereafter the complainants reached the hotel Ramada at around 4.40 a.m. and were informed that the flight is scheduled at 10.00 a.m on 16.4.2012 and all the passengers are required to reach the Airport by 8.00 a.m.; that at the hotel, shuttle bus services were not made available; so the complainant had to hire a taxi to reach Airport after paying $28. Ultimately, the boarding was done by the complainants at 12 noon; that after boarding the air flight at around 12.30 p.m., there was another announcement that the flight will be further delayed due to unloading of luggage of the passengers who had withdrawn the flight. The flight took off at around 1.30 (afternoon) on 16.4.2012 and the complainants reached Delhi Airport on next date (17.4.2012) at 12.30 p.m. The complainants allege that due to avoidable mismanagement by OP-3 it caused severe mental and physical discomfort, terminating into exhaustion, fatigue to the complainant-1 and his ailing wife (complainant-2) resulting into eight days for recovery. Besides the discomfort the complainant-1 who is a a senior consultant of Amity International School had to miss many important appointments which had resulted into huge financial losses and embarrassment. The complainants issued legal notices to the OPs calling upon them to make the payment of Rs. 5,50,000/- (American $ 10,000/-) to each complainant as damages for the above said suffering and financial loss with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of flight. The complainants further state that the OP-3 replied to the legal notice vide letter dated 6.11.2012 admitting their negligence and offered Rs. 16,500/- ($300) to each complainant in the shape of Electronic Travel Certificate to be adjusted in flight of United Airlines with purchase of their tickets upto 12 months. Pleading gross negligence on the part of OPs, the complainants have accordingly moved this forum with the prayer that the OP-1, 2 & 3 may be directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,50,000/- to each complainant for mental agony, shock, suffering both mental and physical during the flight and after the flight and also the financial loss suffered by the complainant-1 for not attending his scheduled meetings at Delhi on 16.4.2012 and thereafter with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of rescheduled of flight i.e. 16.4.2012 and the litigation charges of Rs. 51,000/-.
OP-1 has filed written statement denying all the allegations and specifically stating that OP-1 has nothing to do with the operation of the flight or the management of the business of OP-2 & 3 or the provision of service through the schedule of flight with further submissions that there is no allegation by the complainants regarding deficiency in service relating to issuing valid tickets by OP-1.
OP-2 has also filed written statement stating that the complaint is wholly misconceived and further stating that the complainants were provided hotel accommodation and also offered compensation of $300 each in the form of Electronic Travel Certificate. OP-2 has specifically pleaded that the complainants cannot use the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act to gain profit without any basis and evidence.
OP-3 has also submitted its written statement denying allegations and mainly stating that flight was delayed by 16 hours from its scheduled departure because of the mechanical failure thereby causing inconvenience to the passengers. OP-3 made all the necessary arrangements for food, comfortable accommodation and airport transfers to all the passengers who were travelling in the said flight without any delay. It is denied that shuttle service was not provided to the complainants and they had to spend $ 28 to hire the taxi. Other averments made in the complaint are denied. Pleading no deficiency in service on its part, OP-3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainants have filed a rejoinder to the written statements of OP-3. It is inter-alia stated as under:
“The OP-3 have admitted that their above said Flight was delayed for sixteen hours and it was not at all a happy event for passenger who was carrying his ailing wife with him with limited stock of medicines when the alternative arrangement for the flight was not made. OP-3 have already admitted their negligence in their letter dated 6.11.2012 (Annexure-A).”
Complainant-1 has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Ms. Sarika Gandhi, Manager Legal of OP-2 and of Sh. Harvinder Singh, Country Manager of OP-3 have been filed in evidence on behalf of OPs.
OP-1 has been given up.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the complainants and OP-2.
We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the complainants and OP-2 and have also carefully gone through the record.
Now, we straightway come to the question, whether the complainants are entitled for the relief prayed for?
We find that the complainants’ flight was indeed delayed due to mechanical failure of the aircraft which was beyond the control of the OPs. The OP-2 & 3 provided hotel accommodation and other services along with airport transfers to the complainants and also OP-2 & 3 issued an Electronic Travel Certificate worth $ 300 to each complainant as a token of compensation for the inconvenience caused to them. The letter dated 6.11.2012 from OP-3 states categorically that the flight 82 departed Newark for Delhi 16 hours behind schedule on April 15, 2012 as a result of a mechanical issue and a subsequent crew rest requirement inter-alia. In this letter, they have categorically stated that “Because safety is our number one priority, no carrier can guarantee a flight schedule”. Without specifically admitting their deficiency they sent Electronic Travel Certificate worth $300 to each complainant as appreciation for the patience during this unplanned delay and not offering any type of monetary compensation. Relevant portion of the letter reads as under:-
“Our records reflect that flight 82 departed Newark for Delhi 16 hours behind schedule on April 16, 2012 as a result of a mechanical issue and a subsequent crew rest requirement. During the final preflight maintenance review, a mechanical problem involving the operation of the Galley equipment manifested shortly before its planned departure. The parts required for the repair were not locally available and had to be brought in. Regrettably, the repair took longer than initially anticipated; causing the inflight crew to exceed the maximum federally regulated duty hours and the flight was subsequently delayed further.
In an effort to make the delay more tolerable, our Newark staff secured local hotel and meal accommodations for our inconvenienced customers. I truly regret the inconvenience Mr. and Mrs Ahluwalia experienced. Although schedule reliability is United’s goal, the safety of our passengers and crew is our primary concern.
Because safety is our number one priority, no carrier can guarantee a flight schedule. Consequently, we will not be offering the type of monetary compensation you are requesting. However, in appreciation for their patience during their unplanned delay, United would like to offer Mr. and Mrs. Ahluwalia each a $300.00 (three hundred dollar) electronic travel certificate (ETC). The travel certificate will be valid for one year from the date of issue toward the purchase of a ticket on United Air Lines for the passenger of your choice.”
Copy of this letter is marked as Annex. A for the purposes of identification.
Complainants have relied upon judgments of National Commission in IV (2003) CPJ 144 (NC), IV (2003) CPJ 146 (NC) & UTCDRC Chandigarh in I (2002) CPJ 500. These judgments do not have strong bearing in the case at hand. Facts of these cases are different from the facts of the present case
We do not find any piece of evidence adduced by the complainants regarding any ailment of complainant No. 2 or monetary loss caused to complainant No. 1 as a result of delay.
In view of above reasons, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 19.09.16.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
Case No. 49/13
19.9.2016
Present – None
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
