FA.No.680/2011 against C.C.No.267/2010 District Consumer Forum-I, Visakhapatnam.

Between:

1.Kingfisher Airlines Ltd.

   2^nd Floor, ARO Building, Plot No.1, Balaji Nagar,

   Siripuram, Visakhapatnam.

2.Kingfisher Airlines Ltd.

   Kingfisher House,

   Off. Western Express Highway,

   Vile-Parle (E)   400 099.

…Appellants/Opp.Parties.

And

Balasani Rajasekhar, S/o.late Ramaswamy,

Aged 36 years, Occ: Service,

R/o.13-7-1/3, Bhanoji Colony,

B.C.Road, New Gajuwaka,

Visakhapatnam.

…Respondent/Complainant.

Counsel for the Appellants        :  M/s.Vijaya Sagi.

Counsel for the Respondent     :   Notice held sufficient.

QUORUM: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,

AND

SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.

FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER,

TWO THOUSAND TWELVE.

Oral Order (Per Hon’ble Justice Sri D.Appa Rao, President)

*******  

1.         This is an appeal preferred by the opposite parties – Kingfisher Airlines Limited against the order of the District Forum directing it to reimburse Rs.2,580/ towards additional expenditure for accommodation and pay compensation of Rs.20,000/-, besides costs of Rs.2,500/-.

2.         The case of the complainant in brief is that he went to Port Blair along with his family members consisting of his mother, wife and two children on 04.02.2010  and got confirmed return tickets to Chennai on the  O.Ps’ aircraft on 07.02.2010.  The departure time was 12.45 p.m.  He received SMS on his mobile stating that the flight was re-scheduled and it would be departed at 06.50 a.m. on 07.02.2010.  He immediately rushed to the airport and found that the aircraft was departed at 06.50 a.m. instead of 12.45 p.m. On that, he requested the O.Ps personnel to arrange for his journey on the next flight, as he had to catch train at Chennai to go to Visakhapatnam.  However, they failed to do so.   As such he could only travel on the next day along with his mother, wife and children.  He had taken fresh tickets.  He was not provided any accommodation. Therefore, he was forced to stay in a private hotel.  This is all constitute deficiency in service and therefore, he claimed Rs.50 

3.         The Kingfisher Airlines resisted the case.  While admitting the purchase of tickets, however it alleged that due to a sudden change of the flight schedule by the Airport Authority of India and the air space was closed on 07.02.2010 for purpose of rocket launch, the flight scheduled and was changed and the same was intimated at about 5.30 p.m. on 06.02.2010 to contact No.40404040 available in the P.N.R.history. In fact the S.M.S.was sent to a travel agency of the complainant who in turn sent it to the complainant.  It is between the travel agency and the complainant.  It cannot be said that there was deficiency in service on its part.  In fact the travel agency informed the complainant accordingly.  For the mistake committed by the travel agency, it cannot be found fault with.  At any rate, there was no deficiency in service on its part.  The flight was rescheduled owing to force majure reasons   The claims are exorbitant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.         The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and documents.

5.         The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the message which said to have been sent to the complainant was not received and by the time it was received the flight was already left.  The complainant himself made arrangements for his stay at Port Blair on 07.02.2010 and incurred an expenditure of Rs.2,580/-, evidenced by Ex.A.5.  Apart from it he was forced to postpone his journey for the next day.  The unexpected stay with two small children would cause any amount of inconvenience.  Therefore, it awarded Rs.20  and to reimburse Rs.2,580/- besides costs of Rs.2,500/-.             

6.         Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties-Kingfisher Airlines preferred the appeal contending that the District Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective.  It ought to have seen that it had sent message to the agent, whose duty is to inform to the complainant.  It cannot be found fault with for the complainant not providing his mobile number for informing the change of reschedule.  At any rate, the award was too high and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

7.         The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of facts or law?

8.         It is an undisputed fact that the complainant along with his mother, wife and two children went to Port Blair and got confirmed return tickets on the appellants’ flight to Chennai on 7.02.2010.  The schedule departure was 12.45 p.m.  It is not in dispute that the flight was re-scheduled and departed from Port Blair to Chennai at 6.15 a.m.  The appellants contend that as there was rocket launch by Defence Research and Development Organization, the flight schedule was changed.  The fact remains that the complainant was not received the deviation in the schedule.  As could be seen from the record, the SMS was sent to the travel agent of the complainant with a request to convey the said fact to the complainant.  The appellants did not file any affidavit of the travel agent to state that the said fact was communicated to the complainant.  In fact there was no proof that the travel agent had received the so called SMS sent by the appellants. 

9.         Be that as it may, when the complainant went to airport to board flight at 12.45 p.m. he was told that the flight was taken off at about 6.15 a.m. The complainant was forced to stay in a hotel by spending Rs.2.580/-, evidenced under receipt, Ex.A.5.  The appellants could have taken the mobile phone number of the complainant from the travel agent and ought to have sent message to the complainant directly instead of conveying the same to the travel agent.  It is for the appellants to communicate to the passengers, if there was any change in the flight schedule.  Since the appellants did not take any of these precautions, the complainant and his family members were forced to stay in a hotel.  Undoubtedly, it would cause mental agony.  The appellants did not inform as to the next flight that could be taken by the complainant.  The allegation that he got reserved railway ticket on 08.02.2010 from Chennai to Bandamunda was not in dispute.  Since he could not take his flight on 07.02.2010, he missed the train on the next day.  Therefore, it caused much inconvenience to him.  The complainant has issued lawyer’s notice under Ex.A.10 for which there was no reply from the appellants. 

10.       The appellants though for the first time intend to file some document in the   In fact, the appellants did not file affidavit evidence of any of its staff nor the document to show that such a message was sent to the complainant and the complainant was aware about the change of the schedule.  All this amounts to deficiency in service.  Considering the fact the complainant did not dispute that the contact number was given to his travel agent, we are of the opinion that awarding of compensation at Rs.20  The complainant equally could have taken some precautions by giving his mobile number to the appellants.  At any rate, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had not received the message.  Considering the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the compensation of Rs.20 

11.       In the result, the appeal is allowed in part modifying the order of the District Forum.  Consequently, we direct the appellants to pay Rs.2                                                

                                     PRESIDENT                       MEMBER

                                                                            14/09/2012.

Vvr.