BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C.No. 388/2005 Filed on 23/11/2005

Dated: 16..08..2010

Complainant:

Joseph Jusa D'Cruz, T.C.78/1337, 'ZION' Jusa Road, Airport Junction, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 008 (By Adv. C.S. Rajesh)

Opposite parties:

1. The District Sales Manager, Srilankan Airlines, Spencers Building, Spencer Junction, M.G.Road, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

2. The Area Manager, Spencers Travel Services Ltd., GSA Srilankan Airlines, Spencers Building, Spencers Junction, M.G.Road, Thiruvananthapuram.

   (opp. Parties' 1 & 2 by adv. Nair Ajay Krishnan)

    

3. The Airport Manager, Srilankan Airlines, International Airport, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

4. K.L. Vincent, Station Supervisor, Srilankan Airlines, International Airport, Thiruvananthapuram.

This O.P having been heard on 19..03..2010, the Forum on 16..08..2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that, complainant is a privileged passenger and a Skywards Gold Card Holder having many privileges in the Air travel, that complainant had business dealings at Bangkok on 11^th August 2005, that complainant booked and confirmed Srilankan Airlines tickets on 10^th August, 2005 from Thiruvananthapuram to Colombo by flight No. 0164 at 2.20 P.M and on 11^th August, 2005 from Colombo to Bangkok by flight No. 0422 at 07.45, that complainant had also confirmed return ticket on 11^th August 2005 from Bangkok to Colombo by flight No.0423 at 21.15 and from Colombo to Thiruvananthapuram by flight No.0161 at 08.30 on 12^th August, 2005, that the said tickets were bearing the status 'OK' which was a valid and confirmed one. It is submitted by the complainant that on 10^th August, 2005 he reached the Thiruvananthapuram International Airport at about 12.40 P.M, the Thiruvananthapuram – Colombo flight was only at 2.20 P.M., that the employees of the opposite parties refused the complainant the boarding pass requisite for travelling in the Thiruvananthapuram – Colombo flight and endorsed a wrong entry in the complainant's travel document that the complainant was reported late at 13.40 hours, that the opposite parties had no right or authority whatsoever to deny travel to the complainant, that the complainant could not report his business meetings in time at Bangkok promptly which has resulted in severe pecuniary and mental hardship to the complainant. The said hardship was occasioned to the complainant due to the utter deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties in denying the right to travel to the complainant. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest towards compensation along with cost of the proceedings.

2. Opposite parties filed version contending that complainant purchased a return ticket as per the following itinerary: UL 164/10 August Thiruvananthapuram to Colombo with departure time 14.20 hours, UL 422/11 August Colombo to Bangkok with departure time 07.45 hours (Colombo), UL 423/11 August Bangkok to Colombo with departure time 21.15 hours and UL 161/12 August Colombo to Thiruvananthapuram with departure time 08.30 hours, that as per the practice of all the International Airlines of passengers are requested to report for the International Flight three hours prior to the departure time, that the check-in counters would be closed one hour before departure time, the flight departs on time with all the accepted passengers observing the mandatory Government Regulations like Immigration, Customs and Security formalities and also security check requirement at the ladder point, that complainant reported at 13.40 hours on 10^th August 2005 for the flight UL 164 whose departure was 14.20 hours, that the check-in counters were closed at 13.20 hours, opposite parties' staff to accept the complainant to the effect that why the complainant could not be accepted the flight, that the actual reported time of the passenger as 13.40 hours had been endorsed on the passenger's ticket jacket by the opposite parties' staff with the knowledge of the passenger, that complainant sent a lawyer's notice which has been replied by these opposite parties, that there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. All other allegations stated in the complaint against the opposite parties are devoid of merits and hence opposite partis prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. The points for consideration are:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Whether complainant is entitled to get compensation?

    

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed chief affidavit and has marked as Exts. P1 to P5. In rebuttal, 4^th opposite party has filed affidavit for himself and on behalf of other opposite parties 1 to 3. Opposite parties has not produced any documents.

4. Points (i) & (ii) : Admittedly, complainant purchased ticket from the opposite parties to travel from Thiruvananthapuram to Colombo by flight No.0164 at 2.20 P.M on 10^th August, 2005. There is no point in dispute that the said ticket was confimed with 'OK' status. Ext. P1 is the Original Passenger Ticket and Baggage Check wherein it is written that reported at 13.40 hrs late report by the opposite party. On perusal of the Ext.P1 ticket flight No.is 0164, date of travel is 10^th August, time of departure 14.20 and status 'OK'. Ext. P2 is the copy of the Advocate notice addressed to the opposite parties by the complainant. Ext. P3 is the reply sent by 4^th opposite party to Ext. P2 advocate notice wherein it is stated that the flight UL 164 was scheduled for departure at 14.20 hrs and all passengers are to report at 11.20 hrs, counters were closed at 13.20 hrs, that complainant reported at the check-in counter only at 13.40 hrs.ie., 20 minutes after counter closure. It is further stated in Ext. P3 reply notice that all International passengers have to screen their bags, get their boarding passes, Immigration check, identify their bags, pass through security check and then one more security check at the ladder point. This is the reason why passengers should report 03.00 hrs prior to flight departure. Since complainant reported very late and he was not accepted. Ext. P4 is the copy of the postal receipts and Ext. P5 is the copy of acknowledgement cards. Complainant has been cross examined by the opposite parties. In his cross examination complainant has admitted that passenger should report to the counter before 3 hours of the departure of the flight. Further in his cross examination complainant has deposed that he has reached the Airport at 12.30, but nowhere in his affidavit averred that he has reported at 12.30. He has deposed that in Ext. P1, time reported is noted mistakenly. On being asked whether he lodged complaint on that date, he replied that he complained orally but did not lodge written complaint. It is to be noted that he did not register any complaint, nor did he lodge the complaint before any higher authorities alleging opposite parties has noted the reported time mistakenly. In his cross examination he has deposed that he is still travelling in opposite parties flight. He did not adduce any material evidence showing that he had reported in time as per Airport Regulations. It is pertinent to note that had opposite party noted the reported time mistakenly in Ext. P1, complainant would definitely have lodged a registered complaint against higher authorities alleging deficiency or unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite parties. No such evidence adduced in order to corroborate the contention of the complaint that he had reported in time. It is further to be pointed out that the original ticket is with the complainant wherein late report is noted and seal of the opposite party is affixed therein. The initial onus of establishing the case rests on the complainant, complainant did not take any steps to show that opposite parties made a wrong entry in his travel documents in order to permit some customers of the opposite party to travel in the said flight on the same day. In view of the available evidence and foregoing discussions we are of the view that complainant failed to establish his case that he had reported in time and opposite party made a wrong entry in his travel documents. Inview of the above, we find complainant has not succeeded in establishing the case against the opposite party. No deficiency in service proved. Complaint has no merits at all which deserves to be dismissed.

In the result complaint is dismissed.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 16^th day of August, 2010.

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

ad.

C.C.No.388/2005

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness:

PW1 : Joseph Jusa D'cruz

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Original Passenger Ticket and Baggage Check

P2 : Copy of the Advocate notice dated 16/8/05 addressed to the opposite parties by the complainant.

P3 : Copy of the reply dated 28/8/2005

P4 : Copy of postal receipts

P5 : Copy of acknowledgement cards

III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL

IV. Opposite parties' documents : NIL

PRESIDENT.