Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/648/2012

The Senior Manager , AirIndia - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chinnadurai - Opp.Party(s)

N.G.Prasad

07 Apr 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

BEFORE      HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE R. REGUPATHI  PRESIDENT         

                   THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI                    JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

                                                                                      F.A.NO. 648/2012

(Against order in  C.C. No. 210/2010

DCDRF, Chennai(South) Dated 30.8.2012)

 

Dated this the 7^th day of APRIL, 2015

 

The Senior Manager(CS)

Air India,

19, Rukmani Lakshmipathi Road,

Chennai-8                                          ..Appellant/opp.party

                                       Vs

Mr.Chinnadurai

S/o Poovalingam

No.7/20, Twenty Star Complex

Shop No.79, 3^rd Floor

2^nd Lane Beach, Chennai-8                 ..Respondent/complainant

 

Counsel for the Appellant/opp.party       : M/s NGR Prasad

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant : M/s R.Dhanalakshmi

 

      The Appellant is the opposite party. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, the Appellant/opp.party filed this appeal praying to set aside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.210/2010 dated 30.8.2012.

 

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 25.3.2015 upon hearing the arguments on both side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order. 

                                    

                                  ORDER

THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

1.           The opposite party is the appellant. The complainant had booked his ticket from Singapore to Chennai by Air India 447 leaving Singapore at 8.25 a.m on 31.10.2009 though a boarding pass was issued to him, as if he did not turn up for boarding the flight in time, he was declared as a “No show” passenger. The flight left without him. There after the complainant was accommodated on the next day flight to Chennai on 1.11.2009  thereby alleging negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party claiming a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs  towards loss, Rs.2 lakhs towards mental agony and hardship, Rs.50,000/- towards cost. The opposite party denying the allegations contended that even though the complainant had obtained a boarding pass, he did not arrived the boarding place 15 minutes before the scheduled departure and thereby the flight doors were closed and an endorsement was made to that effect due to late reporting, the duty officer offered to send him by next flight on the same day and there is no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part.

2.         Based on both side materials and after an enquiry, the District Forum allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, Rs.5000/- towards cost.

 

3.         Aggrieved by the impugned order, the opposite party filed this appeal contending that the District Forum erroneously allowed the complaint since because the complainant has not arrived in time to board the flight  and he was permitted to be accommodated on the next available flight, but refused to accept the same and the travel on the next day flight only at his request and there was no over booking as alleged by the complainant and made arrangements for his stay and other facilities and thereby the appeal to be allowed.

4.            We heard both side arguments and carefully considered the materials placed before us in this regard.

 

5.               It is the admitted case of both sides, that the complainant had confirmed  ticket for his travel from Chennai to Singapore on 30.10.2009 and also return from Singapore to Chennai on 31.10.2009 and also returned from Singapore to Chennai on 31.10.2009 as per Ex.A.1 and while on return journey even after issuing the boarding pass, he was not allowed to travel due to “No show” i.e, it is alleged that he was not boarded the flight 15 minutes earlier as per the practice. But the complainant contended that there was no such thing happened, no announcement was given and due to over booking of passengers, his boarding pass was snatched and refused to proceed further and only on the next day he was accommodated though it was denied by the appellant by stating that there was no over booking, no document was filed except to show time table under Ex.B.1 in order to establish the complainant refused to accept the next available accommodation in the flight by stating that it is for Trichy and not for Chennai and only to show that the flight is only for Chennai Ex.B.1 was filed. Nothing is available to show that there is no over booking on that day. on perusal of exchanges of notice under Ex.A.3 and A.4, we find the legal notice issued by the complainant, it is mentioned that at the time of boarding even after issuing boarding pass,  suddenly after some times, the complainant was called and he was denied to travel in the said flight, stating that there was over booking, though he was having confirmed air ticket when the complainant enquired about the same with the staff, they snatched the boarding pass from the complainant and advised to start on the next day which made the complainant, had to stay in Singapore for one and half  day more. On perusal of reply under Ex.A.4, it was stated since it was peak season and the flight was fully posted, he was told by the check in staff, while issuing the boarding card, to report to the departure gate well in time to avoid last minute inconveniences, in spite of the above advice, he reached departure gate after all passengers were boarded and the doors of the aircraft were closed.

6.     From these details, it is clear that after issuing boarding pass, they have made endorsement as, “No Show passenger”. Talking reponsibility for this action, a remark was made in his ticket copy that he was off loaded due overbooking  of the flight. If no such remark was made, he would have been treated as, ‘gate no show passenger’ entitled to no refunds, no revalidation etc. Such action also entitled the affected passenger for hotel accommodation at our cost and the offer was made to him. The complainant declined the offer and gracefully accepted only the revalidation of his ticket part”,  for which they alleged only in order to facilitate for accommodation and stay, such endorsement were made as an usual practice.

7.        The learned counsel for the complainant relied upon the case reported in I 2003 CPJ, 169, National Commission in which held as follows:-

     “ such type of claim is not maintainable in a case where a passenger, though holding a confirmed ticket, is denied boarding due to over-booking. In the case of denied boarding in similar circumstances this Commission has already given two judgments viz. Dr. Arun Jain Vs Thai Airways International Ltd., Original petition No. 80 of 1997 decided on 21^st March, 2002 and Rajinder Pal Jaura Vs The Secretary, Union of India & Anr,

I (2003) CPJ 24 (NC) = original petition No.266/1997, decided on 12^th November 2002. In these cases this Commission has held that overbooking is an international practice resorted to by all international airlines. In fact in the folder of the ticket issued to the complainant, he had been apprised of the circumstances of “No-show” passengers and overbooking and these we quote:-            “No-show- passengers”

        We do not think that the payment of pound sterling 150 can only be the alternative. The international practice is to provide both Hotel accommodation, etc., and to fly out the passengers on the first available flight and apart from that to pay compensation ranging US $ 300 to $ 400. We are of the view that a passenger who is denied boarding should be offered Hotel accommodation etc., and also paid only on his request. A passenger may decline Hotel accommodation, etc., but he should be apprised of the offer.

8.        Hence in this case also it is clear that the opposite party/appellant failed to establish that only because of the complainant’s lapse he could not be accommodated in the schedule flight in spite of having confirmed ticket for the journey from Singapore to Chennai and not be cause of over booking in that flight and thereby we find no error or infirmity with the finding of the District Forum in this regard. But as for as to award of compensation is concerned since the District Forum awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony by considering the facts and circumstances of the case, though the complainant was belatedly accommodated with next day flight in the upgraded class of travel from economic to business executive class, we are inclined to reduce the compensation from Rs.50,000/- to  Rs.25,000/- only. In other aspects, confirming the award of cost of Rs.5000/-.

       In the result, the appeal is allowed in part modifying the order of the District Forum, reducing the compensation from Rs.50,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- only and confirming the award of cost of Rs.5000/-.

   The directions shall be complied within six weeks from the date of this order.

       No separate order as to costs in this appeal.

 

 

A.K.ANNAMALAI                                                     R.REGUPATHI

JUDICIAL MEMBER                                                    PRESIDENT