Haryana

StateCommission

A/452/2018

PUNEET YADU DALMIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

BRITISH AIRWAYS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

RAJEEV ANAND

24 Jul 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

                                                         First Appeal No.452 of 2018

Date of Institution:12.04.2018

                                                               Date of Decision: 24.07.2019

 

Mr. Puneet Yadu Dalmia, S/o Sh. Mr. Yadu Har Dalmia, R/o 18, Golf Link, New Delhi 110003

…..Appellant

Versus

 

British Airways Office at: DLF Plaza Tower DLF Qutub Enclave Phase-1, Gurgaon, Haryana 120001.

                                      …..Respondent

 

 

CORAM:             Mr. Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member

                             Mrs.Manjula, Member                                                                   

Present:              Ms.Shashi Himsikha, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr.Parveen Jain, Advocate for the respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          Delay in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application filed for condonation of delay.

2.      The present appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 09.02.2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (In short “District Forum”) vide which the complaint instituted by the complainant was disposed off.

3.      Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant booked seven first class Airline tickets for his entire family with the opposite party and made a payment of Rs.19,90,868/- through credit card.  O.P. issued airline tickets to the complainant’s travel agency. The tickets included  flight from Rome to London,  London to New Delhi.  On 10.06.2015, he alongwith his family arrived at Rome Airport  at 12.00 noon, i.e. 3 hours and 15 minutes before the scheduled department time.  He came to know that flight had been delayed and departure time was 16.30 hours instead of 15.15 hours.  He requested the staff of airport  to provide special assistance being a business class passenger, but, all in vain.  he wanted to catch the earlier flight which was depart at 14.00 hours, but, he was not provided seat in the flight.  He again came to know that flight  would be delayed further and would depart at 15.30 hours, the complainant miss their flight from London to Delhi.  The complainant missed the urgent meeting.  Complainant’s family members went  to redeem their coupons at the airport, but, the said coupons did not apply on the yogurt and milkshake.  The complainant finally boarded the flight BA 547 alongwith his family members and he requested some Asian Vegetarian food, but they were informed that there was no vegetarian food available and only chicken and salmon sandwiches were available. The dispute was resolved amicable to the O.P.  The O.P. indulged in unfair and deceptive trade practice.

4.      Notice being issued. Opposite parties (O.Ps.) contested the complaint and it has been alleged in the written version that    flights have to be reschedules for a number of reasons.  As per the record, SMS were sent to the complainant.  The complainant has aware of the fact that airport at Rome had been destroyed in a massive fire on 05.06.2015. The facility were required to be maintained by the Airport and not the Airline.  There was a single queue for check in at Rome Airport.  The complainant family members could not be accommodated in flight No.BAS549 which was scheduled to take off before the complainant’s flight No.BA 547 as no seats were available in flight BA 549.  The flight No.547 from Rome to London was delayed for two hours on account of  clearance not received from Air Traffic Control (ATC).  The flight VS 300 was rebooked on the request of the complainant.    15 Euros which is equivalent to Rs.1120/- were given to complainant as the flight was delayed only 2 hours.  When complainant reached the Rome Airport, the renovation work was going on. The entire amount of food coupons utilized by the complainant  and his family members at the Rome Airport.  It was denied the Asian food was not available in the flight BA 547. The complainant and his family members travelled in business class from London to Delhi as in the said flight there was no first class and complainant was willing to travel in any class in which the seat was available.   Preliminary objections about the maintainability of complaint etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

5.      After hearing both the parties, Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (In Short “District Forum”) disposed off the complaint vide impugned order dated 09.02.2018 and observation as under:-

“Therefore, considering all the circumstances of the case, we are inclined to hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.  However, the complainant is entitled to recover the difference of fare, if any, of first class to business class of London to Delhi sector from his travelling agent.  The present complaint stands disposed off accordingly.”

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

7.      The argument have been advanced by Ms.Shashi Himsikha,  the learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr.Parveen Jain, the learned counsel for the respondent. With their kind assistance the entire original record as well as that of the appellate record has been properly perused and examined.

8.      It is not disputed that the complainant booked tickets from Delhi to London and London to Rome and from Rome to London with the opposite party.  It is not disputed that the facilities at Rome Airport were not available as the same had been destroyed in a massive fire on 05.06.2015. It is also not disputed that 15 Euros were given to him as the flight was delayed only for two hours.  It is also not disputed that the complainant consented to travel in any class in which the seat is available.

9.      Since the fire was broken out at the Rome Airport about a month ago, as such, some repair work was carried out and things became scattered on account of the administrative exigencies and beyond the reasons and control of the competent authorities. The flight was delayed for two hours. 

10.    Learned counsel for the complainant has also argued that when there was a delay in the flight for two hours, the complainant has also made a request that since he was conveyed by some other family members that flight from London to Delhi depart at 2.00 p.m and complainant wanted to board a flight from London to Delhi, it was requested that British Airways may be accommodated, which was likely to be taken off around 2.00 p.m. but they were not accommodated.  Even at London since initially booking of the complainant and other family members was now category of first class, they were made to travel on business class and as such, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the British Airlines. 

11.    To rebut this contention, it has been vehemently argued by learned counsel for the respondent that admittedly due to certain exigencies or the facts and circumstances, which were beyond the control of the airport  or competent authorities, the airlines was delayed for two hours. Since, there was no possibility of accommodating the complainant and other family members in the flight, which was to be taken off before the departure of the flight, which was delayed for two hours, to compensate the complainant and other family members, they were paid the Indian currency of Rs.7840/- for their refreshment.  However, the contentions have been raised that these coupons could not be used as these were valid only at few counters.  This contention raised on behalf of the complainant is of no consequence and rendering no assistance.  As far as the another contention raised on behalf of the complainant that the complainant and the other family members were made to sit in the business class whereas initially booking was of first class category.  In this regard, it is suffice to say that learned District Forum has already put the complainant at liberty to recover the difference of fare from the travel agent. Resultantly, this contention is also of no consequence on account of the fare that on certain occasions there are circumstances that the passengers are to be accommodated as per the availability of the category of seats.  The another contention was also raised, which does not appear in any manner to this fact that the vegetarian meal was not provided to the complainant and other travelers as per the standardized norms. This contention also does not stand to the scrutiny of this Commission  as in the leading airlines, the meal is strictly provided to the travelers as per their choice and requirement and it is ultimately unbelievable when the complainant and other family members have specifically asked to provide the vegetarian meal, there is no possibility that the reputed British Airways would not provide the vegetarian meal as per the requirement of the passengers, hence there is no legal sanctity.  Since, the basic relief about the recovery of the difference of fare has already been allowed by the learned District Forum and in the considered opinion of this Commission that respondent-British Airways does not appear to be any deficiency in service and as such, there is no illegality or perversity in the well reasoned order passed by the learned District Forum and as a result thereof, the present appeal is devoid of merits and stands dismissed.

 

July 24th, 2019     Mrs.Manjula                   Ram Singh Chaudhary                                         Member                          Judicial Member                                                   Addl.Bench           Addl.Bench          

 

S.K.