Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/422/2018

Vasu Krishnan - Complainant(s)

Versus

B.S.S. Hospital - Opp.Party(s)

K.S.Natarajan

31 Aug 2023

ORDER

 Complaint presented on :04.12.2012

 Date of disposal            :17.08.2023

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

                PRESENT : THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,                          :PRESIDENT

                                      TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.,                         : MEMBER-I

                                      THIRU.V.RAMAMURTHY,B.A.,B.L.,PGDLA.,    :MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.433/2018

 

DATED THURSDAY THE 17^th DAY OF AUGUST 2023

Rajiv Ponniah,

S/o.Ponniah,

No.3, Sam’s Nathaniel Towers,

Flat No.A2, 2^nd floor,

West Club Road, Shenoy Nagar,

Chennai-600 030.

                                                                                          …..Complainant

 ..Vs..

M/s. Emirates,

Branch Office,

Represented by its Branch Manager,

12-13, Riaz Garden,

Cathedral Gardens,

Kodambakkam High Road,

Chennai.

                                                                                                …..Opposite Party

 

Counsel for Complainant               : M/s.N.Subramani , M.Murali & R. Joe Anand

 Counsel for  opposite party               : M/s.Deepa harigovind.

ORDER

TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.,    : MEMBER-I

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 prays to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1000000/- as compensation and damages for the mental agony suffered by the complainant due to the deficient and negligent service of the opposite party and costs.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant submits that the he booked AIR ticket from the opposite party concern at Australia, on 11.11.2010 for travel from Cairns (Australia) to Chennai, which was arranged by the opposite party via Brisbane and Singapore. The complainant further submits that the opposite party at the time of issuing the ticket, had issued tickets for the travel of the complainant not through a direct flight from Cairns to Chennai, but through connecting flights. The opposite party had arranged for the travel of the complainant in such a manner that the complainant would fly from Cairns to Brisbane on Qantas aircraft, then from Brisbane to Singapore in the opposite party's carrier and from Singapore to Chennai in the carrier of Jet Airways. Thus the opposite party having received the flight charges from the complainant had issued their ticket for travel through the connecting flights in the above said manner. The complainant submits that the opposite party as a service provider had collected the fare and issued their own tickets in such a manner to the complainant in pursuant to their arrangement with other carriers. The complainant submits that his booking reference number is J3MYDJ, and the Ticket Number is 1762788386348. The complainant further submits that he boarded in the Qantas Airways flight on 17.11.201 from Cairns to Brisbane. On 18.11.2011 the complainant boarded from Brisbane to Singapore. The complainant submits that he reached Singapore at 8.30 a.m. on 18.11.2011 and the connecting flight to Chennai was 9W Jet Airways at 9.20 a.m. on 18.11.2011. Since, one of the opposite parties connecting flight from Brisbane to Singapore was late, his landing at Singapore was delayed, and in turn the officials refused to allow the complainant to fly in the connecting flight from Singapore to Chennai. The officials informed the complainant that as per their conditions the complainant ought to have reached the Airport before one hour. Immediately, the complainant approached the opposite party over phone but the opposite party did not respond properly. Thereafter, he spent his money about 250 dollars to purchase another ticket again and stayed another day at Singapore Airport at his own expenses. The complainant submits that, even though there was some inconvenience. The authorities made arrangements to him and sent him to his native place safely. But the opposite party and their authorities gave improper service to the complainant due to which he suffered monetary loss and it also caused severe mental agony to the complainant. Further, apart from the above ordeals the after three days from his date of arrival complainant received his belongings only after three days from his date of arrival.  The complainant submits that because of the negligent service of the opposite party he was made to suffer in the above manner which caused irreparable loss and hardship Hence the complainant had sent a notice dated 12.12. 2011 though his advocate setting out the above ordeals faced by the complainant due to the negligent and deficient service of the opposite party and claiming the compensation for the sufferings mental agony, and the said legal notice was received by the opposite party on 15.12 2011. The opposite party on receipt of the said notice failed to comply but had sent a reply dated 11.01.2012 with vague and untenable averments. In the said reply the opposite party admits that they have issued the ticket to the complainant in their paper, had made arrangements for the complainant's travel through the connecting flights of two other carriers. The complainant submits that when the opposite party as a service provider had collected the charges and issued the tickets, they should have made sure that the complainant being a passenger would not face any trouble and hardship in his journey. The opposite parties should have made sure that the complainant has sufficient time gap between the connecting flights. Instead after issuing the tickets, now claiming that the flight landed late at Brisbane and as though claiming it is beyond their control is untenable. Further, the opposite party now merely trying to blame the complainant as through he failed to board the Chennai flight at Singapore and two other passengers boarded the flights is also untenable and unreasonable. The boarding of the passengers in an aircraft which they alight, their familiarity with the boarding points in the Airport etc., in that too by landing from one any event when the opposite party admits their aircraft reached Singapore late flight and then boarding on another aircraft from which they alight their familiarity with the boarding points in the airport etc., In any even when the opposite party admits their aircraft reached Singapore late beyond the Schedule landing time, now cannot merely put blame on the complainant. Further, the opposite party in their reply also admits that the complainant's belongings were handed, over to the complainant only after a delay, further the complainant was again made to purchase new tickets for his travel from Singapore to Chennai. Thus in all the hardship suffered by the complainant was admitted by the opposite parties in their reply. However, the opposite party failed to comply with the demand made by the complainant to pay for the damages suffered by him due to the deficient and negligent service of the opposite party. Hence this complaint.

2.WRITTEN VERSION FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY  IN BRIEF:

          The opposite party denies all the allegations and averments made in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted.  The complaint filed by the complainants was false, frivolous and vexatious and is as such liable to be dismissed. The complainant has also not made Jet airways a party defendant to the present complaint. when Jet airways is a necessary party, as the complainant has averred in the complaint that the last leg of the journey from Singapore to Chennal was on Jet airways. Thus the complaint suffers from misjoinder/non joinder of necessary parties. It is the case of the complainant that when he arrived at Singapore Airport and proceeded to the boarding gate for the jet airways flights to Chennai, he was not allowed to board the flight as he was late and the flight was already closed. Why the complainant arrived late at the gate is not known to this opposite party. It is pertinent to note that there were two other passengers on the same flight from Brisbane (Australia) as that of the complainant, who were also connecting with the Jet Airways flight to Chennai and they managed to board the flight as scheduled. Therefore it is very surprising that an allegation of deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party. The complaint it is true that the complainant was booked for travel from Cairns (Australia) to Chennai via Brisbane and Singapore. Though the ticket was issued on Emirates paper the same involved multiple carriers namely from Cairns to Brisbane the flight was on Qantas and from Brisbane to Singapore on Emirates and from Singapore to Chennai on Jet airways. This opposite party states that even though the ticket was issued on Emirates paper but in order to ensure seamless travel, available to interline understandings with other airlines, this allows passengers to travel on different carriers on a single ticket. Otherwise, several tickets would have to be bought separately and would cost passengers substantially more: therefore airlines have understandings with other airlines to allow such travel.  Accordingly the complainant travelled from Cairns to Brisbane November 17, 2011 and from Brisbane to Singapore November 18, 2011. This opposite party states that there was a slight delay in the incoming flight namely EK 433 from Brisbane to Singapore by a few minutes due to air control congestion. However this opposite party states that one of their passenger service assistants was deployed at the aircraft gate with the names of the passengers connecting with Jet airways flight 9W 15 to Chennai and such passengers were immediately directed to proceed to the transfer gate B for the flight to Chennai. The letter dated February 02. 2012 from the Manager (Passenger Services DNATA Singapore Pte Ltd addressed to Emirates at Singapore, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the names of passengers connecting with the Jet airways flight Chennai were displayed and they were asked to immediately proceed to the transfer gate. Why the complainant did not adhere to the instructions, can only be answered by the complainant himself. This opposite party states that two other passengers who were on the same flight from Brisbane to Singapore namely PAUL DESMOND MR AND VIEGAS FERNANDO JANE FRANCISCO Ms. had no problem in connecting with the flight to Chennai. Thus when the other passengers on board the same flight could connect with the Jet airways flight to Chennai, it is surprising to note that the complainant was denied entry to board the flight. The passenger manifest of Jet airways flight 9W 15 from Singapore to Chennai on November 18, 2011. This opposite party shall also refer to and rely upon the passenger manifest for flight EK 433 from Brisbane to Singapore on November 17, 2011 when produced where the names of the above two passengers are shown. This opposite party has reason to believe that the complainant instead of going directly to the transfer gate may have gone to the duty free area of the airport and later went to the boarding gate which by then was closed. The complainant has himself averred that the incoming flight to was delayed thus he should have been extra careful and attentive to ensure that he arrived at the transfer gate immediately like the other two passengers did. It is denied by this opposite party that the complainant was informed by the officials that he should have arrived an hour before the scheduled departure of the flight. This opposite party states that the jet airways flight coupon could not be validated as the flight was closed and therefore the flight was accordingly decried as a no show. This opposite party had to reissue the ticket for which a charge of SG$ 250 had to be paid as well as SG$150 towards no show charges as this was required by jet airways the connecting carrier. As the ticket purchased were of a particular pricing and any rebooking at a higher configuration attracted the said charge. Thus for the complainants own fault he had to make the necessary payment as he wanted to travel from Singapore to Chennai though he was given the option of flying on Emirates via Dubai I and then to travel back to Chennai from Dubai without any charges, which the complainant did not accept. This opposite party states that they made all necessary arrangements to ensure that the ticket of the complainant was reissued for which the necessary payment had to be made to Jet airways as the fault lay clearly with the complainant. The complainant has alleged that he received his baggage only 3 days after his arrival at Chennai. This opposite party states that as the complainant was a no show passenger for the jet airways flight, his baggage also had to be off loaded from the flight 9W15 and subsequently Jet airways did not ensure that the baggage was loaded on the next day's flight. Thus the bag was left behind at Singapore and as soon as the same was notified necessary arrangements were made to ensure that the bag was delivered to the complainant in the shortest possible time. This opposite party states that the complainant was himself the cause of his own misery as he did not report to the transfer gate on time despite having sufficient time, as two other passengers from the same flight did connect without any difficulty with the flight to chennai. There has been no cause for any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. This opposite party states that there was sufficient time between the connecting flights and necessary arrangements were also made by this opposite party who displayed the names of the connecting passengers at the exit gate of the incoming aircraft and they were directed to proceed to the transfer gate Since two other passengers on board fight EK 433 had no difficulty in connecting with the onward flight to Chennai, this opposite party has reason to believe that the complainant may have gone to the duty free area of the airport and then later came to the transfer gate, by which time the flight was closed. Thus the fault lay clearly with the complainant as this opposite party did all that it could to help the complainant secure a seat the next date on the same flight for which a charge had to be paid by the complainant. Furthermore this opp0site party had also given the option to the complainant to fly on Emirates flight som Singapore to Dubai and onwards to Chennai. But the complainant refused the said routing and since he wanted to travel directly to Chennai from Singapore he decided pay for the reissue of the ticket voluntarily as wanted to travel from Singapore to Chanai directly. The complainant has falsely stated that he had to pay to purchase a fresh ticket, which is not correct. Thus the complainant has tried to mislead the court by stating false facts. As regards the delay in arrival of the complainant baggage the same was delivered to him in the shortest possible time. As the bag had to be offloaded from the flight jet airways did not reload the bag on the flight the next day, thus there was a delay. This opposite party once again repeats and reiterates that the complainant travelled from Cairns to Chennai via Brisbane and Singapore. The flight from Brisbane to Singapore was delayed by a few minutes due to air traffic control and congestion at Singapore airport... On arrival at Singapore the ground handling agent was present at the exit gate of the aircraft with the names of the passengers connecting with the flight 9W 15 to Chennai who were asked to proceed immediately to the transfer gate. Two more passengers who were also on the same flight did connect with the flight to Chennai. However for some unknown reason the complaint was the only one who decided to arrive late at the gate and by which time the flight was closed. Thus the complainant was unable to board the flight to Chennai. As the flight coupon of jet airways could not be reissued directly by this opposite party as the complainant was a no show passenger, a charge of SG$250 plus no show charges of SG$150 was payable by the complainant. The complainant was also given the option of flying on Emirates flight from Singapore to Chennai via Dubai but he refused the said option as he wanted to fly directly to Chennai. As the complainant did not board the flight 9W 15 to Chennai his bag also needed to be off loaded and Jet airways apparently did not load the bag on the said flight. On making a complaint this party traced the bag short landed and delivered the same to the complainant in the shortest possible time. Thus the complainant was the cause of his own misery, as he reported late at the transfer gate of the connecting flight and thus no case has been made out against this opposite party for deficiency in service which warrants any payment of compensation and the complaint be hereby dismissed with costs.

3.POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part opposite party as alleged in the complaint?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed in the

    complaint.  If, so to what extent?

 

The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to A4 are marked on their side.  The opposite party has filed proof affidavit and documents Ex.B1 and B2 were marked on their side.

4. POINT NO :1 :-

          The complainant submits that he booked Air ticket with opposite party at Australia on 11-11-2010 for his travel from Cairns(Australia) to Chennai via Brisbane-Singapore, while he was issued tickets not in single flight but to travel through varied carriers viz Cairns to Brisbane in Qantas airlines, Brisbane to Singapore in Opposite Party’s Airline and Singapore to Chennai in Jet Airways. While the complainant was issued a ticket with booking reference J3MYDJ and ticket no.1762788386348, The complainant submits that he flew from Cairns to Brisbane in Qantas Airlines on 17-11-2011 and from Brisbane to Singapore on 18-11-2011 while he reached Singapore by 8.30a.m and the connecting Chennai flight being Jet Airways scheduled at 9.20A.m.on the same day 18-11-2011. It is averred in complaint that the flight from Brisbane to Singapore was delayed and hence the complainant arrived late to board the Jet Airways flight from Singapore to Chennai while he was resisted from boarding the flight as it was closed and the officials informed the complainant that he must have reached the airport one hour prior to boarding. On approaching the opposite party they failed  to respond after which the complainant had to spend $250 for purchasing ticket for onward journey and he  stayed at Singapore another day at his own expenses. The complainant further submitted that the Authorities made proper arrangements towards his journey to Chennai but the complainant suffered monetary loss due to the opposite party’s negligent service further above all these ordeals the complainant’s baggage reached him only after  3 days from date of arrival and which was also admitted by the opposite party.           The complainant further stated that the complainant’s legal notice dated 12-12-2011 received and replied vide letter dated 11-01-2012 but failed to comply with the notice sent by the complainant and further averred that the opposite party should have made sure that the complainant has sufficient time gap between the connecting flights but failed to do so due to which the complainant had to spent money as well as stay one at Singapore airport which amount to deficiency in service.

5. On the other hand the opposite party had contested the complaint stating that the fault was really with the complainant and further stated that he has failed to add jet Airways as a Party when the Jet Airways is a necessary party and further averred that the complainant arrived at Singapore airport and was not allowed to board the flight to Chennai as he was late and the flight was already closed as he arrived late at the gate and it was not known to the opposite party and added that there were other two passengers from the same flight who travelled along with the complainant from Brisbane to Singapore and they managed to board the flight as scheduled and hence alleged that the complainant has missed the flight since he might have gone to duty free area of airport and later went to the boarding gate which by then was closed and hence alleged on the part of the complainant. Further the opposite party has stated that the complainant booked to travel from Cairns to Brisbane, Brisbane to Singapore, Singapore to Chennai through varied multiple carriers  in one single ticket and further that the ticket issued on opposite party paper but since it was seamless travel based on interline understandings with other airlines and the passengers can travel on different carriers under same ticket hence the travel commenced and further the opposite party defended the complaint by alleging that the complainant is believed to have gone to duty free area of the airport and later went to the boarding gate which was then closed. It is further averred by the opposite party that the complainant who was well aware that the flight from Brisbane to Singapore was arriving late the complainant should have been careful enough to board the connecting flight and also averred that the Jet Airways coupon could not be validated as the flight was closed and hence opposite party had to reissue the ticket which costs SG$250 and SG$150 towards no show charges as the complainant wanted a direct flight to Chennai. As the ticket booking was for a particular pricing and rebooking at higher prices attracted extra costs. It is stated by the opposite party that the complainant denied the option given by the opposite party to travel in Emirates via Dubai to Chennai without any charges and hence  alleged that the fault is on the Complainant and hence the tickets purchased with Jet Airways for the flight to Chennai was borne by the complainant as he chose not to go by the opposite party’s offer. The complainant’s baggage was delayed only  due to the complainant’s failure to board the Jet Airways 9W0015 flight and was no show passenger, the baggage was loaded into the connection flight and it had to be off-loaded from the 9W0015 Jet Airways and boarded into the next day’s flight which left from Singapore the next day and the same was delivered at the complainant in the shortest possible time. Hence all the averments by the complainant is denied by the opposite party and submitted that the complainant was the sole reason behind the miseries suffered and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

6. The undisputed facts of the case are that the complainant chose to travel from Cairns(Australia) to Chennai in the opposite party’s airways and a ticket was issued vide Booking ID-20180 paying a total cost of $1,105.42 and the same paid to the opposite party dated 11-11-2011 while the complainant flew from Cairns to Brisbane in Qantas Airways ,from Brisbane to Singapore through the opposite party’s airlines the flight no.EK433 was scheduled to arrive at Singapore Airport at 0810Hrs on 18-11-2011 and the complainant was expected to board his next flight from Singapore Airport to Chennai at 0920Hrs on 18-11-2011, found in Ex.A1, the flight EK433 landed at 0830Hrs due to traffic congestion and the same is admitted by the opposite party, the complainant failed to board the connecting Jet airways flight 9W0015 as he was prevented from boarding the connecting flight 9W0015 as the flight was already closed , and was informed that he should have arrived one hour earlier to board the flight.

 7. The complainant in his version has stated that the delayed arrival of EK0433 at the Singapore Airport was the reason behind the complainant’s missing the connecting flight while the opposite party denied the fact by stating that the flight EK0433 delay was only for a short duration and that was due to Air congestion control and that the complainant had enough time to board the next flight but had failed to do so while two other passengers from same flight from Brisbane to Singapore EK0433 namely Mr.Paul Desmond and Mrs.Vieges Fernando Jane Fancisco managed to board the flight 9W0015 which was to fly from Singapore to Chennai on time while the names of the aforesaid passengers are mentioned in Passenger Manifest dated 17-11-2011 found in Ex.B2. The complainant’s baggage arrived at Chennai only 3 days after the complainant arrived at chennai. Since the complainant had booked tickets from the opposite party and it is found from Ex.B2 the Passenger Manifest list the names of the complainant is not figured while the names of other 2 passengers who were alleged to be boarded from Brisbane to Singapore who subsequently has to board the flight 09W0015 from Singapore to Chennai is found in the Passenger manifest but at the same time the complainant’s name was not reflected in the Passenger Manifest that was prepared on 17-11-2011 which is due to negligence on the opposite party as the said passenger Manifest was prepared on 17-11-2011 a day before the commencement of the journey and there was no explanation for the same by the opposite party.  The opposite party has not filed the passenger manifest for flight No. EK433 from Brisbane to Singapore on 17.11.2011 to prove that the other 2 passengers travelled along with the complainant in that flight.

8. Further the opposite party’s averment that the Jet Airways was not added as a party and hence praying for dismissal of complaint due to misjoinder of party is not tenable as the complainant was made to pay extra charges for the ticket from Singapore to Chennai at his own cost due to the negligent act of the opposite party by not having made sure that the complainant has sufficient time gap between the connecting flights and thereby he was put to monitory loss and mental agony and further the explanation given by the opposite party for arrival of luggage after 3 days delay is found to be not valid and that also amounted to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Though the opposite party contended that an option was given to the complainant to travel to Chennai via Dubai free of cost there is no proof for the same. Further the contention of the opposite party that the complainant might have spent his time in the duty free area of the airport is also not supported by any evidence.  The opposite party relied upon Vineet Khurana v. Bajaj Travels Pvt. Ltd & Anr [I(2008) CPJ 493 (NC)], K.Nagarajajaiah & ors vs Indian Airlines and anr [II (2006) CPJ 72 (NC)], Suraj Tiwari V. Spice Jet Ltd & ors (2009) CPJ 3, Sobha (SMT) Vs. Jetlite Airways I(2010) CPJ 369, The Manager, Southern Region, Air India, Madras & ors V V.Krishnaswamy [III(1994) CPJ 79 (NC)], K.Ravindran V. Singapore Airlines Ltd., [II(1992) CPJ 536 (NC)] and those were not applicable to the facts of the present case but on the other hand the decision held by NCDRC in Jet Airways vs Vandhana Jain in FA no. 164 of 2013 ‘Having issued tickets for both sectors of the journey on two flights of their own Airline, the appellants/OP had a clear obligation to ensure that the passengers boarding at Jaipur are able to board the connecting flight at Mumbai’ and in the present complaint also the opposite party having issued a single ticket for travelling from Cairns to Chennai through three different connecting flights is solely responsible for the missing of connecting flight from Singapore to Chennai by the complainant for which he has to spent about $400 for getting another ticket for a direct flight to reach Chennai and further it is found that the delayed delivery of luggage to the complainant also amounted to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Point No. 1 answered accordingly.

 

9. Point no.2:-

         Based on findings in Point No. 1 since the negligent act of the opposite party has led to the complainant to spend $400 in excess for next flight from Singapore to Chennai in-spite of the fact he had already paid for the same to opposite party and for the delay in delivery of the luggage the opposite party is liable to pay a compensation of Rs.35000/- towards deficiency in service and mental agony caused to the complainant and also pay Rs.5000/- towards the cost of the complaint. Point no.2 answered accordingly.

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed.  The Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.35000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Only) towards compensation for deficiency in service, hardship and mental agony caused to the complainant and also pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost of this complaint.  The above amount shall be paid to the Complainant within two months of the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of order to till the date of payment.

Dictated by the Member-I to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 17^th day of  August 2023.

 

MEMBER – I                   MEMBER – II                           PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	11.11.2011	Air ticket for travel of the complainant on 17.11.2011 and 18.11.2011
Ex.A2	12.12.2011	Legal notice sent by complainant to opposite party.
Ex.A3	15.12.2011	Acknowledgement card.
Ex.A4	11.01.2012	Reply notice sent by the opposite party to complainant.

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY:

Ex.B1	02.02.2012	Letter from the Manager DNATA Singapore Pte Ltd addressed to Emirates at Singapore.
Ex.B2	18.11.2011	List of passenger manifest of jet airways flight 9w15 from Singapore to chennai and also the passenger manifest for light EK433 from Brisbane to Singapore on 17.11.2011

 

MEMBER – I                   MEMBER – II                           PRESIDENT