KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL NOs. 757/11 & 329/12
COMMON JUDGMENT DATED : 31.07.2012
PRESENT:
SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 757/11
1. K. Balachandran Thampi,
T.C. 15/794, ‘Vandana’,
Jaya Mansion Compound,
Vellayambalam,
Thiruvananthapuram.
: APPELLANTS
2. Satya Balachandran,
T.C. 15/794, ‘Vandana’,
Jaya Mansion Compound,
Vellayambalam,
Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. Ajay Kumar B.)
Vs
1. Indian Airlines,
represented by its Managing Director,
No.113, Gurudwara Rakab Ganj Road,
New Delhi – 110 001.
2. The Airport Manager, : RESPONDENTS
Indian Airlines,
International Airport,
Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. V.K. Mohan Kumar)
APPEAL NO. 329/12
1. Indian Airlines,
represented by its Managing Director,
No.113, Gurudwara Rakab Ganj Road,
New Delhi – 110 001.
2. The Airport Manager, : APPELLANTS
Indian Airlines,
International Airport,
Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. V.K. Mohan Kumar)
Vs
1. K. Balachandran Thampi,
T.C. 15/794, ‘Vandana’,
Jaya Mansion Compound,
Vellayambalam,
Thiruvananthapuram.
: RESPONDENTS
2. Satya Balachandran,
T.C. 15/794, ‘Vandana’,
Jaya Mansion Compound,
Vellayambalam,
Thiruvananthapuram.
COMMON JUDGMENT
SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER
These two appeals arise out of the order passed by CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in CC No. 253/06. The appellant /complainant in 757/2011 came up for enhancement of the award and the appellant/opposite party is aggrieved on allowing the complaint, against the direction to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant with interest at 9% and cost of Rs.4,000/-.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant along with her father, 1st complainant, purchased ticket from Indian Airlines from Thiruvananthapuram to Bangalore to be scheduled on 19.05.06. The complainant reached the airport and they were boarded to the aircraft. After some time, all the passengers were instructed to get down from the aircraft due to some problems in the aircraft. The complainants were not informed of the reasons why they were deplaned. It was very late they were informed that the flight was cancelled. The officials were assuring that they could go to Bangalore even if it was late and on assurance of the officials the passengers were waiting. They could not take any other means due to a recalcitrant attitude of the opposite parties. The complainants could not reach Bangalore consequent to that she could not appear for the entrance examination of P.G. D.C in Journalism at Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Banglore on 20.5.2006. The 1st complainant is the Assistant Conservator of the Forests who had after re-scheduling his official programmes accompanied his daughter to Bangalore. There had no other way to reach Bangalore being so late. The 2nd complainant could not appear for the examination and had to suffer great loss, mental agony and hardship for which the opposite party is liable to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation to the complainants and filed the complaint.
3. In the written version filed by the opposite parties it is contended that they were not aware of the individual details of the passengers and it is also contended that the Thiruvananthapuram - Bangalore flight could not operate as scheduled was beyond the control of them. The opposite parties asserted that they could not anticipate defects and repairs occurred in the aircraft in advance. Even though earnest efforts were made by the authorities they could not rectify the defects and had to cancel the flight. It is also the contention that the passengers were boarded to
IC 909 on the hope that all the defects were rectified. It is also noted that ignoring the defects in the flight and to operate is a major issue. There is no alternate aircraft available and all the passengers were informed the correct position and they were offered all possible help. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties which was beyond their control due to the technical defect in the aircraft.
4. The 1st complainant was examined as PW1 and marked Exts. P1 to P4(a). On the side of the opposite parties DW1 examined and Exts marked as D1 and D2 on their side.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants in Appeal 329/12 (respondent in Appeal 757/11) submitted that the flight had to be cancelled due to unforeseen circumstances. The flight No. IC 909 on 19.5.06 from Thiruvananthapuram to Bangalore had to be cancelled due to technical defects which were evident from Ext.D2. He also pleaded that the appellants made their best efforts to take the passengers in the aircraft IC 909 but could not takeoff due to the problems persisted in the aircraft. There were no other alternative efforts left and the complainants were informed of the cancellation of the flight and they were given all possible help. It is also pleaded that they have informed the cancellation and alternatively the passengers were given opportunity to refund the flight charges or they could avail the next day’s flight. It is also urged by the counsel that there had no alternate flight. It was also not possible to arrange the alternate flight on the same day. Hence there was no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties and compensation awarded by the Forum below is very high and the complainant was not entitled to such a huge compensation. Further the complainant had not produced any evidence to show that they had caused any financial loss for not travelling to Bangalore on the same day.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant in Appeal No.757/11 (Respondent in Appeal 329/12) submitted that it is the callous attitude of the airlines which caused much trouble and mental agony to the complainants for not informing the delay of their flight. He pointed out that as per Ext.D2 the opposite parties/appellants were well aware that the flight was having technical defect at the time of arrival at Thiruvananthapuram at 4 pm itself. The 2nd complainant had to appear for an entrance examination for P.G. Diploma Course in Advertising and Public Relations of the Indian Institute of Mass Communication at Bangalore. The counsel also admitted that the passengers were boarded twice in the plane on the hope of onward journey but immediately deplaned and only at about 10.pm, the complainants were informed about the cancellation of the flight. Though the passengers were offered refund of flight charges for the next day flights, the complainant could not reach Bangalore in time to attend the examination which would be held in the morning of 20.5.2006. It took about 7 hrs. to inform the passengers regarding the cancellation of the flight. So also delay in informing the cancellation prevented the complainants from taking other airlines flights on 19.5.06 itself. It also prevented the complainants from taking alternate conveyance to Bangalore also. The counsel also submitted that the evidence adduced by the opposite parties was through an employee from the Administrative Branch who does not have direct knowledge. DW1 does not have any competency regarding the technical defects of the flight. It is also admitted that DW1 has no direct knowledge about the instance regarding the cancellation of the flight IC 909 on 19.5.2006. He also deposed that he was only aware of the details of airlines only and he was not competent to speak about the flight details of other airlines. The fact that the 2nd complainant could not write the examination is not other wise controverted and that fact remains unchallenged. It is also a fact that the cancellation of the flight was informed very late and the complainants were prevented from taking alternate means to travel to Bangalore. As the 2nd complainant could not appear for the examination she lost one year in her career.
7. The 1st complainant/1st respondent who was the then Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests had to postpone many assignments for accompanying his daughter to Bangalore Both the 1st and 2nd complainant had to suffer mental agony and stress. Except the Ext. D2 there was no other document in evidence to establish the technical snag and the time of occurrence of the snag. The opposite parties/appellants examined DW1 who had no direct knowledge regarding the instance of technical problem on that day. The counsel relied on the decision rendered by the National Commission in Indian Airlines Ltd. Vs Rajiv Goyal & Another IV (2010) CPJ 397 (NC) wherein The Hon’ble National Commission awarded compensation in a case where there occurred snags on account of which flight cancelled.
8. Since both the appeals arise out of the same order, these are being disposed of by a common order. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Commission is of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties/appellants which is to be compensated appropriately. Keeping in view that the flight had developed technical snag from 16.00 hrs onwards on 19.5.06 and the delay in informing the cancellation of flight to the passengers caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainants. The 2nd complainant/ respondent lost one year and also considering the fact that the uncertain peak hours of a student who had to appear for the entrance examination unable to reach that particular place certainly caused mental distress and agony. So also the 1st complainant who is a reputed person also lost his precious time due to the cancellation of the flight. Though the Forum below allowed Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.4,000/- as cost to the complainants. This Commission finds that it is appropriate to enhance the compensation to a lumpsum amount of Rs.50,000/-, failing which the amount will carry interest @ 9% from the date of the order from the opposite parties/appellants.
In the result, Appeal 329/12 is dismissed and Appeal 757/11 is allowed as ordered above.
Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Lower Forum with the LCR.
A. RADHA : MEMBER
Da
