Orissa

Cuttak

CC/22/2023

Falguni Parija - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chairman-cum-Managing Director,Air India - Opp.Party(s)

R K Pattanaik & associates

01 Sep 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.22/2023

 

1.     Falguni Parija,

S/o: Mr. Satchikanta Parija,

C/o: Ghana Shyam Mohanty,

SBI Bank Premises,Link Road Branch,

Cuttack-753010.

 

2.     Shalini Patnaik,

W/o: Falguni Parija,C/o: Ghana Shyam Mohanty,

SBI Bank Premises,Link Road Branch,

Cuttack-753010.

 

3.     Ayansh Parija,

S/o: Mr. Falguni Parija.

 

4.     Aayra Parija,

D/o: Mr. Falguni Parija,

(Complainants no.3 & 4 are minors and are being through their father as guardian representative).                                                                                                                                                                            ... Complainants.

 

          Vrs.

 

1.       Chairman-cum-ManagingDirector,AIR INDIA

Having its Head jOffice at Number-113,Airlines

House,GurudwaraRakabganj Road,

Parliament Street,Delhi-110001.(Behind All India Radio).

 

2.       The Manager,Bookings/Customer Care,

Air India Booking Office,Airlines House,

Nehru Bridge Road,Laal Darwaza,Ahmedabad-380001.

(Behind Roopali Cinema).                                                                       ....Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    18.01.2023

Date of Order:  01.09.2023

 

For the complainants:                 Mr. R.K.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps                :                 Mr. S.Das,Advocate.

 

       

Sri Debasish Nayak,President            

          Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition bereft unnecessary details in precise form is that the complainants consisting of four in number and of a family thought of going and serving at a place called Mamba at Zambia of South Africa.  The complainant no.1 is by profession of a Chartered Accountant who was serving at Ahmedabad and he got the service offer at Mamba on 5.7.22.Subsequently, complainant no.2 also got a service offer there at Lusaka. Accordingly, complainant no.1 alongwith his family members who are all complainants in this case; had booked air tickets in order to proceed from Ahmedabad International Airport to Mumbai International Air Port and to proceed from Mumbai Airport to the place of new service as offered at Lusaka/Mamba.  Accordingly, they had to proceed from Ahmedabad International Airport on 10.12.2022 at 8.40pm through Air India flight AI638for Mumbai International Airport and from Mumbai International Airport to Lusaka International Airport through Kenyan Airways flight no.KQ-203.  In total they had 10 number of check-in baggages and they had to pay for the additional baggage charges at Ahmedabad Airport,when the same was demanded from them by the Air India Authorities.  The complainants had three hand baggages with them which had contained all the necessary travel papers like their Visa/Passport, Bank debit and credit cards, foreign currency as well as service and career testimonials of complainant no.1 which were required to be furnished at Lusaka.  The Air India staff had requested the complainants to handover those three baggages to them which they told that they would be returning back to the complainants at Mumbai Baggage Belt area.  Accordingly, those three hand baggages were handed over to the Air India authorities at Ahmedabad Airport. The complainants were carrying Laptop and baby pram with them also.  They had also one LED TV and while waiting for boarding the flight AI 638 after security check up at Ahmedabad Airport, the complainant no.1 was informed that there were some screening issues for their LED TV for which he wasrequired to go back to the screening desk being escorted by the Airport employees.  The complainants allege that they were harassed unnecessarily as because there was no such issue in screening and ultimately, they were allowed to board the flight AI 638 of Air India in order to travel from Ahmedabad to Mumbai.  They had handed over the baby pram to the Air India staff while boarding the flight also. 

          When the complainants landed from the flight and went to the Baggage Belt at Mumbai, they found to their dismay that one of the three hand bags which they handed over to the Air India staff and which hadcontained necessary travel papers, bank debit, credit-cards, foreign currency, some testimonials of complainant no.1 and the baby pram had not reached Mumbai Airport.  The complainant no.1 immediately then had informed about such missing of baggages to the Airlines authorities and he was assured about the delivery of those before he would be undertakinghis onward journey from Mumbai to Lusaka on 11.12.22.  But subsequently there was no response from the Indian Airlines authorities and staff on 10.12.2022.  The complainant failing to receive his missing baggage had lodged complaint to that effect before the Air India missing baggage counter at Mumbai.  Having no other way out, the complainants had to forgo their journey Mamba/Zambia of South Africa and had to book a hotel at Mumbai where they stayed by going there on hiring a taxi.  The complainant no.1 had received a call from the Kenyan Airlines that they had received only 7 baggages out of the 8 number of check-in baggages and they had not received the LED TV of the complainants from the Air India staff.  The complainants were to board the Kenyan flight from Mumbai International Airport which was to depart at 2.40 IST on 11.12.22 so as to carry them to Lusaka of Zambia. But since the hand baggage containing documents, the child pram and the LED TV of the complainants were not delivered duly by the Air India authorities at Mumbai International Airport on 10.12.22, the complainants had to forgo their onward journey to Jomo Kenyatta INTL,Nairobi and had to suffer severally since because the complainants no.1 & 2could not join their places of employment and thereby had to lose the joining fee & salary perks.  It is alleged by the complainants that they had to suffer because of the callousness attitude of the O.Ps for which they had to return to their residence at Cuttack from Mumbai through Bhubaneswar Airport being debarred of proceeding to Mamba/Lusaka and joining in service there. 

The complainants have relied upon two decisions(i)In the case of Chander Mohan Lall Vs. British Airways &Ors decided on 6^th November,2017 by the Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission wherein the Hon’ble Commission allowed the compensation to the consumer, (ii) decision of District Consumer Disputes Redresal Forum-II, Qutub Institutional Area,New Delhi, in the case of  Injet Airways Ltd. Vs. Ajit Kumar Sinha  in C.C. no.374/2008, decided on 18^th  November,2015. Thus, by filing this case before this Commission, the complainants have claimed a total sum of Rs.45,66,606/- from the O.Ps including their extra baggage charge, taxi fares, luggage transport fares, porter service charge and hotel accommodation with fooding, Air tickets from Mumbai to Bhubaneswar and back and also for the salary as lost by the complainants no.1 & 2 and further with compensation towards their mental agony and harassment, loss of reputation, loss of livelihood and also cost of their litigation.  They have also claimed interest thereon and have prayed for any other relief as deemed fit and proper. 

          Together with the complaint petition, the complainants have filed copies of several documents in order to prove their case.

2.       Both the O.Ps have contested this case and have filed their joint written version.  According to the written version of O.Ps, the case of the complainant is frivolous and baseless which is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed.  There is no cause of action for the complainants to file this case and they had deliberately and intentionally concealed the material facts.  According to the O.Ps, it was  complainant no.1 himself who had made such requests at the boarding gate seeking assistance for their extra hand bags for check-in at the Ahmedabad Airport.  Instructions were given by the staff at the Ahmedabad counter to the complainants not to keep any valuable articles, documents, cash or jewellery or even restricted items in the check-inbaggages.   The O.Psadmit about one bag, one LED TV and a Baby stroller belonging to the complainants, had not reached the Mumbai Airport Baggage Belt being not connected to the same flight from Ahmedabad Airport.  The staff at Ahmedabad Airport had connected all the bags of the complainants on the same flight i.e. AI638(AMD/BOM),apart from one bag held by the Airport security containing restricted items like electronic batteries and power-bank, OOG items, one LED TV and a Baby stroller as those were late checked in.  Due to paucity of time because of late check-in, the OOG items like the Baby stroller and the LED TV could not be connected on the same flight.  The AIL Ahmedabad requested the complainant for an authority letter through e.mail in order to open the bag and remove the restricted items from the bag which was held up at level-4 with the Airport operator so that it could reach the Mumbai Airport Baggage Belt. The said authority letter was e.mailed on 12.12.2022.  It is further averred by the O.Ps that the complainant had contacted the Assistant Manager  Mr. Rakesh from Air Traffic Control to search for his travel documents in the left behind baggage at Ahmedabad Airport.  The said baggage was checked after the approval was received from the complainants and thereafter the complainants were informed that there were no travel documents found in the said bag.  The complainant had to abandon his onward journey as because he himself had forgotten to carry his international travel documents with him and it was not due to the latches of the O.Ps.  The present case as filed is only after thought and the O.Ps thus have prayed through their written version that the complaint petition being not maintainable be dismissed with costs.

          They have also filed copies of several documents alongwith their written version in order to support their stand. 

The O.Ps have also filed evidence affidavit through one Vaishali R. Ghumare who happens to be working with the Air India Airport Services Ltd. at Ahmedabad.  The contents of the said evidence affidavit as filed on behalf of the O.Ps through the said Vaishali R. Ghumare when perused, it is noticed that the same is a reiteration of the averments as made in the written version but in a miniature form and nothing else.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.Ps, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainants is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?

iii.        Whether the complainants are entitled to the reliefs as Pclaimed by them?

Issue no.II.

Out of the aforesaid three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue is taken up  first for consideration here in this case.

After going through the averments as made by the complainants in their complaint petition, the contents of the written version of the O.Ps, the evidence affidavit of the witness on behalf of the O.Ps, the written notes of submissions as filed from either sides and also after perusing copies of documents as filed from both the sides in this case, it is noticed that the O.Ps have basically urged about the late check-in by the complainants, their hand bag containing power-bank/battery items and about some OOG items carried for which such dislocation had arisen.  Admittedly all the four complainants had undertaken their journey from Ahmedabad International Airport on 10.12.2022 through Air India flight AI 638 for Mumbai International Airport in order to undertake their further journey on 11.12.2022 from Mumbai to Mamba at Zambia of South Africa.  It is also admitted fact that the complainants had excess baggages with them for which they had paid a sum of Rs.68,938/- as excess baggage charges in total. It is also not in dispute that out of the 10 baggages of the complainants one LED TV, one baby pram and a hand bag could not be delivered at the Mumbai International Airport Baggage Belt area on 10.12.2022 to the complainants when they had gone for their baggages after alighting from the said Air India flightAI 638 at Mumbai.  In this context, the O.Ps have mentioned through their written version that the LED TV and baby stroller/baby pram being out of gouge items (OOG), they had to call CISF to escort those items and due to the late check-in of the complainants and paucity of time, the said items could not be connected to the same flight.  If it is so, the O.Ps are to prove through cogent evidence that infact the complainants had lately arrived at the Ahmedabad International Airport for which such disruption/inconvenience arose.As such, the burden of proof is  upon the O.Ps in order to apprise this Commission that due to the latches on the part of the complainants, three of their baggage items could not be connected to the same flight AI 638 through which they had undertaken their journey on 10.12.22 from Ahmedabad to Mumbai.  They have not whispered a word as to by which time, the complainants had reached the Airport and there is no evidence to that effect also.  As it reflects from the Air ticket whose copy vide Annexure-1 has been filed by the complainants, they were to travel through AI638 Air India flight from Ahmedabad terminal-2 Airport to Mumbai Airport on 10.12.2022 at 20:40 hours.  As per the conditions envisaged in the said Air ticket, the complainants were suggested to reach the Airport two hours prior to the departure of the flight.  After scanning of all the available copies of documents, it is noticed that the Terms and Conditions of the carriage (CoC)as filed by the O.Ps in this case at condition no.-6 under the heading of “check-in and other requirements of carriage” there at condition no.6.1 “check-in condition and closure of counters”, it is mentioned therein that the check-in counters are open 3 hours prior to the scheduled flight departure time.  The counter close 60 minutes before the scheduled flight departure time.  This shows that the complainants had duly checked in and had obtained from boarding passes thereby enabling them to board the said flight AI638 from Ahmedabad to Mumbai which is also not in dispute.  Having screening issues complainant no.1 had gone to the screening desk is also not in dispute.  When the check-in counter closes 60 minutes prior to the scheduled time of departure, this indicates that the complainants had not checked in late as alleged by the O.Ps in this case.  Moreso, there is no scrap of documents filed by the O.Ps in order to apprise this Commission that infact the O.Ps had checked in late for which such disruption arose. 

The O.Ps have stated through their written version that the LED TV and the baby pram were OOG items.  According to their definition OOG item is Out of Gouge item.  In this context while going through the Terms and Conditions of Carriage (CoC) of Air India express as filed by the O.Ps, it is noticed that quite surprisingly no such description about any OOG item is mentioned therein.  Thus, as it appears, to be a self-creation of the O.Ps in that context in order to wriggle out from the responsibility with which they were saddled.  As per the documentary evidence availableon record, the complainants had duly checked in at the Ahmedabad Airport and were issued boarding passes thereby enabling them to board the Air India flight AI638 in order to travel from Ahmedabad to Mumbai.  Their baggages were also checked in, after being screened and reasons yet unknown that three of the said baggages belonging to the complainants were not connected to the Air India flight AI638 on 10.12.2022 by the O.Ps.  While going through the copies of documents as annexed with the written notes of submission, it is noticed that immediately after alighting from the AI 638 flight when the complainants found that three of their baggages had not reached the Baggage Belt area at Mumbai Airport, they had intimated the fact to the staff of the Air India in that context on the same day, i.e., on 10.12.2022.

It is the strong contention of the O.Ps that since because the hand bag that which was left out without being connected to the same flight AI 638  which the complainants had boarded on 10.12.22 from Ahmedabad Airport to Mumbai; had contained restricted items like power-bank/battery items.  It is for this AII Ahmedabad had requested the complainant for an authority letter through e-mail in order to open and remove the restricted items from their bag that which was held up at level-4 with the Airport operator at Ahmedabad. In this context, the complainants had averred in their complaint petition that after having completedtheir security check and while they were waiting in order to board the flight AI638 from Ahmedabad to Mumbai on 10.12.22, they were required to return to the screening desk as there was some screening issues.  If at all the bag of the complainants that which was left out had actually contained power-bank or battery item, the security personnels should have promptly acted by removing the same from the said hand bag while they had called the complainants to the screening desk. As it appears that complainant no.1 Mr. Falguni Parija had gone to the screening desk for the said purpose.There is no evidence put forth in order to apprise this Commission that infact there was recovery of power-bank/battery items from the said hand bag of the complainants. As per the written version of the OPs, one Mr Rakesh from ATC was requested by the complainants to search for their travel documents in their left behind baggage at Ahmedabad Airport.But such averments are not whispered at all by the complainants and the OPs has made no endeavour to examine the said ATC personnel in order to justify their pleadings accordingly. Be that as it may, while going through the Terms & Conditions of Carriage (CoC) as filed on behalf of the O.Ps, it is noticed that at Condition-8.7  “Carriage of Battery Cells” it is mentioned therein that the carriage battery cells in hand baggage for any electrical/electronic items are permissible now and will not be removed at the security point.  Batteries spare/loose including lithium,-ion cells or baggages for portable electronic devices must be carried in cabin bag only.  For lithium material batteries, the lithium material contained must not exceed 2g and for lithium-ion batteries the watt hour reading must not exceed 100 Wh articles which is the primary purpose as a power source/eg, power-banks are considered as spare batteries.  These batteries must be individually protected to prevent short circuit”.  From this provision, it is undoubtedly clear that if at all the complainants who were travellers in the Air India flight AI638 from Ahmedabad to Mumbai on 10.12.22 were carrying any power-bank/battery items,, it was the duty of the checking personnels, to advise them to carry the saidpower-banks/battery items after ensuring it to be individually protected in their hand bags.  In this score, the O.Ps are completely silent.  When there is no iota of evidence about the power-bank or battery to have been recovered from the left-out bag of the complainants and when there was provision to carry those in the hand bag; if at all those were recovered, they should have been duly instructed to carry those in their hand bag properly after taking due precautions but there is no such evidence to that aspect even.  Thus,the preponderance of probabilities steers to arrive at an irresistible conclusion that infact the O.Ps are found to be quite callous in their duties and responsibilities and for such negligent act of them, the complainants hadto suffer irreparably resulting to which they could notboard their onward flight from Mumbai to Kenya in order to proceed to Mamba/Zambia at South Africa. 

The consequential losses as calculated by the complainants tilts our eye brows.  Complainants no.1 & 2 had to lose their salary for a month, the complainants had to reside at Mumbai in a hotel by paying for it in the night of 10.12.22 and also for a day or two thereafter, bear taxi fares and luggage carrying fare, had to proceed their native place at Cuttack through Bhubaneswar Airport from Mumbai and bear all the undue, unprecedented  expenses due to the latches of the O.Ps.  The O.Ps are found definitely to be deficient in their service for which the complainants had to suffer.  This issue is thus found to be repelling away from the O.Ps and leaning towards the complainants which is answered accordingly in favour of the complainants of this case.

Issue no.i.

The complainants with a bonafide motive had booked air tickets in order to commence their journey from Ahmedabad to Kenya through Mumbai in order to proceed to Mamba at South Africa but due to lack of proper cooperation and especially due to the callous attitude of the O.Ps, who were quite negligent in their duties for which the complainants could not complete their journey, rather their journey was disrupted at Mumbai Airport since because three of their luggage items were not delivered to them duly at Mumbai by the O.Ps who were service providers. It is for this, they had to file this case before this Commission which can be is definitely maintainable.  Accordingly, this issue is answered.

Issue no.iii.

After going through the above discussions, and after considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Commission thinks that the complainants are definitely entitled to the reliefs as sought for but ofcourse to a reasonable extent.  Hence, it is so ordered;

                                              ORDER

Case is decreed on contest against the O.Ps.  Both the O.Ps are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  The O.Ps are to bear all the consequential unnecessary and unwarranted expenses of the complainant like the taxi fare of the complainants which they have spent at Mumbai to the tune of Rs.2050/- in total, the hotel accommodationspent at Mumbai to the tune of Rs.7550/-, the fooding expenses there at Mumbai to the tune of Rs.8400/-, the luggage carrying fares at Mumbai to the tune of Rs.1400/-, the cloak room charges at Mumbai of Rs.48,000/-, the taxi fare from Bhubaneswar Airport to Cuttack to the tune of Rs.3000/-, Air tickets of the complainants from Mumbai to Bhubaneswar Airport to the tune of Rs.38,182/- and again their return Air tickets from Bhubaneswar to Mumbai for a sum of Rs.18,324/- which is a total of Rs 126906/-.  The O.Ps are also to pay  compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- towards their mental agony, harassment and sufferings alongwith litigation cost of Rs.50,000/- to the complainants.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 1^st day of September ,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.         

                                                         

                                                                                  Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                             President

 

                                                                                        Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                      Member