DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.107/2013

Sh. Gaurav Pruthi S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Pruthi,

R/o 1916 Outram Lines, Near Kingsway Camp,

Delhi-110009                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ….Complainant

Versus

Airport Authority of India,

Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdarjung Airport,

New Delhi-110003

The General Manager,

Delhi International Airport (P) Ltd.

New Udaan Bhawan, Opp. Terminan-3

Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi-110037

Mr. Prabhakara Rao, Chief Execuitive Officer,

Delhi International Airport (P) Ltd.

New Udaan Bhawan, Opp. Terminan-3

Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi-110037                       ….Opposite Parties

       Date of Institution    :         01.03.2013

       Date of Order            :         15.12.2021

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

ORDER

President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava

                The complainant has filed the present complaint on account of deficiency of services by the opposite parties and is seeking a compensation of rupees five lakhs. OP No. 1 is Delhi Airport Authority, OP No. 2 is the General Manager Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd., OP No. 3 is the CEO Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd., OP No. 4 is the Chief Operating Officer Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. and OP No. 5 is the General Manager GMR group Delhi International Airport Ltd.

The complainant states that he went to IGI Airport-Terminal 3 on 20.5.2012 at around 9:00 PM and was waiting for the flight number AI 317. Since the flight was delayed, the complainant was waiting next to the arrival gate number 6 after parking his car. The complainant has annexed the car parking slip as Annexure C1. It is further the case of the complainant that around 12 am, a dog came from behind and bit the complainant on his left leg. The complainant went for first aid at ‘Medanta’ inside the airport and was asked to take rabies injection and he also went to GMR office inside the airport premises to lodge a complaint regarding the negligence of the OPs which resulted in the complainant being bitten by the dog.

To the surprise of the complainant, none of the OPs took the matter seriously and were in fact laughing at the incident. The complainant further had to undergo an agonising process of taking anti rabies injections. The complainant emailed his complaint at feedback.igiairport@gmrgroup.in. The copy of the email is annexed as annexure C 5.  The OPs replied by an email stating that “ we have been fighting this menace and are in touch with MCD officials, even in the last fortnight, a drives have been carried out to capture the canines and MCD has been regularly requested to carry out such drives. “We sincerely offer our apology to you and assure that we are deeply committed to curb this issue.” The copy of the email is hereby annexed as Annexure ‘C-6’.

OP No.1 was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 22.01.2015 since it did not appear after duly served. In their common reply,  the OPs 2 to 5 have taken the preliminary objection that they do not have any direct or indirect connection with the alleged occurrence and that the complainant is not a consumer qua the answering OPs . It is further the case of the OPs that the responsibility of removing stray dogs beyond the operational area of the airport lies with the MCD. MCD has been removing stray dogs from that side area from time to time. In fact, DIAL pays statutory taxes for maintenance and upkeep to the MCD South. They have stated that the complainant is not a consumer as he has never obtained any services of the answering OPs 2 to 5 for any consideration or otherwise, nor was he a passenger travelling from Delhi airport. They have also stated that the complaint should be dismissed for mis joinder of parties as OPs 2 to 5 are neither necessary nor a proper party, hence, no cause of action has ever arisen against them.

In their support OPs 2 to 5 have pointed out that W.P No. 14175/2005 titled Vikas Jain vs Government of NCT of Delhi by order dated 30.8.2006, the court had stated that the task of ensuring Delhi free of cattle menace was with MCD and NDMC authorities and for that purpose and amount of rupees 4 crores was released by the Delhi government to the MCD. On this ground they have sought the dismissal of the complaint.

Section 2(1)1(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, reads as follows:

"deficiency means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service”

The complainant has filed the present complaint on the ground of deficiency of services against the OPs and to establish his case the Complainant has produced a parking receipt in respect of the vehicle parked which does not establish any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs as evidently the present complaint does not pertain to any issue with the parked vehicle.  The complainant is also not a passenger who is availing the services of the OPs while travelling. The complainant has not therefore, been able to establish a consumer relationship with the OPs within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act.  He has not availed of any services from the OPs and therefore the question of deficiency in service does not arise. The complainant is not entitled to any relief from this Commission. The complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.

File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties.