Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/168/2019

Air India Airlines Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Virendra Singh - Opp.Party(s)

N P Singh Adv.

16 Mar 2020

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	168 of 2019
Date of Institution	01.08.2019
Date of Decision	16.03.2020

M/s AIR India, through its Managing Director/Directors.

Registered Office:- 

113, Rakabganj Gurudwara Road, New Delhi-110001.

Regional Office:- 

Air India Air Lines Ltd., through its Station Manager, SCO No.162-163-164, Ground Floor, Dakshin Marg, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

                                    …..Appellant/Opposite Party.

                                Versus

Dr.Virendra Singh s/o Sh.Vijay Singh r/o House No.323, Sector 21-A, Chandigarh.

                                          ....Respondent/Complainant

BEFORE:             JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                             MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                             MR.RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

Sh. N.P.Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Amarbir Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate for the respondent.  

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

            This appeal is directed against the order dated 04.06.2019, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), vide which, it allowed Consumer Complaint bearing No.639 of 2018, which reads thus:-

“8.        In view of the above findings, the complaint is allowed and the OP is directed to refund the airfare of ticket from Delhi to Chandigarh i.e. Rs.4,025/- to the complainant. In addition to this, the OP is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant. The OP is further directed to pay Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation. 

9.         This order be complied with by OP within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OP shall be liable to pay the awarded amounts along with penal interest @ 12 % p.a. from the date of order till its realization besides litigation expenses.”   

2.             The Forum noted down the following facts narrated by the complainant :-

 “1.     The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he is a doctor by profession and specializes in the field of Hematology. He had to travel Nagpur and Delhi for taking DNB Practical Examination and, therefore, three air tickets of Air India (OP) as detailed below were purchased by the National Board and the same were sent to him by e-mail :-

i)	03.09.2018	Chandigarh-Nagpur	AI 622/629
ii)	05.09.2018	Nagpur-Delhi	AI 6E-202
iii)	06.09.2018	Delhi-Chandigarh	AI 91-9831

                It has further been averred that dispute arose on 06.09.2018 when he reached the New Delhi at about 3.50 A.M. to board the flight No.AI 91-9831 to Chandigarh which was to depart on 5:55AM.  He checked in his luggage and was issued a boarding pass by the OP for the flight. He and other passengers were seated in the flight but the said flight never took off and he was made to wait for several hours in the aero plane and on enquiry, no satisfactory answer was given to him and other passengers by the crew members.  However, the crew members delayed the flight on one or the other excuse.  Being mentally tortured for around one and half hours, all the passengers were told to depart from the aeroplane at about 6:30 A.M. without assigning any reason.  It has further been averred that the flight was cancelled due to laxity and shortcomings on the part of the OP as they failed to provide the services as required, which amounted to deficiency on its part.  After waiting for about one hour at the airport, the staff/employee asked the complainant and other passengers that the departure time of the flight had been revised and new boarding passes was to be issued, however, no exact time of departure was conveyed.  After collecting the earlier boarding passes, the new boarding passes were issued whereby the new boarding time was changed to 8.00 A.M.  However, to the utter shock of the complainant and other passengers, the flight No.9i831 again got delayed contrary to the promises made by the OP and the complainant was again made to wait for a couple of hours to board the plane.  Finally, at around 10:45 A.M., the complainant and other passengers seated in the flight but that flight did not take off.  It has further been averred that he had suffered mental shock, stress and agony while he was made to wait for several hours in the aeroplane and no satisfactory answer was given to him and other passengers.  Finally after again being mentally tortured for around 1:30 hours in the aeroplane, all the passengers were told to depart from the aeroplane at about 12:30 p.m. without assigning any reason.  Finding no other alternative, the complainant purchased a new air ticket for his journey from New Delhi issued by the Jet Airways for Rs.4025/-.  It has further been averred that he has undergone great stress as he was repeatedly contacted by his staff for giving clarifications to ailing patients and supplying upgradations in lieu of new appointment timings. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.”

3.             The Forum noted down the following facts narrated by the Opposite Party to the complaint filed by the complainant :-

“2.    In its written statement, the OP while admitting the factual matrix of the case has pleaded that  the first flight  was cancelled due to technical reasons as the aircraft developed technical sang as the landing gears signals of the aircraft did not give any signal rather there was some electronically defect and required immediate check up before flying and the technical experts tried their best to get it fixed up but could not and it took more than two hours and even more to get it rectified but the same was not sort out and as such the flight was cancelled and all the passengers were requested to re-board the aircraft and wait in the lounge area till further orders. It has further been pleaded that another flight in which the complainant boarded also did not take off as the same has just arrived from other destination, was not thoroughly checked up as the aircraft was not ready to fly because of refilling of gas which required two hours to go to through this process and for other technical checkups before take off, therefore, was also grounded.  It has further been pleaded that there was no other aircraft available with the OP as all the flights were scheduled to fly at their destinations and as such the complainant was asked if he could share the taxi with others till Chandigarh, which he refused, therefore, his luggage was returned and he chose to come back to Chandigarh by Jet Airways flight.  It has further been pleaded that the OP is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant due to technical reasons as per the Civil Aviation Requirements 3–Air Transport Series-M-Part-IV-Issue 1 dated 06.08.2010. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.”   

4.                The complainant, filed rejoinder to the written statement of the Opposite Party, wherein he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and refuted those, contained in the written version of the Opposite Party. 

5.             The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6.             After hearing the Counsel for the parties and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the Forum, allowed the complaint, as stated above.

7.                Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party.

8.             We have heard Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

9.             Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party has submitted that the flight of the complainant was post-poned for few hours due to technical reasons because the said aircraft before take off developed a technical snag as the landing gears signals of aircraft did not give any signal rather there was some electronical defect which needs to be immediate taken care of, for the safety and security of the passengers. He further submitted that the technical expert tried their level best to rectify the said snag but it was not sought out, as such, the said flight was cancelled. He further submitted that even the appellants served to the respondent/complainant meals and refreshments before deboarding the aircraft. He further submitted that the appellants asked the respondent/complainant if he wanted to go by taxi to Chandigarh but he flatly refused, therefore, his luggage was returned to him and he chose to come back to Chandigarh by Jet Airways flight. He further submitted that the complainant asked for refund of jet airways ticket of Rs.4025/- and not Rs.2533/- which he spent on air Air India flight. He further submitted that aircraft was arranged by the appellants by 1.30 PM on 06.09.2018, which flew by 2.00 PM to Chandigarh, in which other co passengers were ferried. He further submitted that Air India is not responsible for the situation which is beyond the control of it and there are Civil Aviation Rules in this regard. He prayed for allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order.

10.             On the other hand, Counsel for the respondent/complainant has submitted that the Forum has rightly passed the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the appeal filed by the Opposite Party.

11.           After going through the evidence and record of the case, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter.

12.           The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Forum has rightly passed the impugned order. It is the admitted fact that the complainant booked e-ticket from Delhi to Chandigarh for a sum of Rs.2533/- and boarded the flight bearing No.AI91-9831 and the said flight was to take off at 5.55 AM. However, the said flight did not take off, due to which, staff of the appellant/Opposite Party collected the boarding pass and issued new boarding passes for another flight, wherein, new boarding time was mentioned as 8.00 AM. It is also the admitted fact that the said flight also did not take off and the passengers were de-boarded from the flight at 12.30 PM without any reason. The plea of the appellant/Opposite Party that the said flight did not take off due to some technical defects/snags in the aircraft has no value at all because the Opposite Party failed to place on record any expert report regarding technical defect before the Forum. If for the sake of arguments, we believe the contention of the appellant, what was the fault of the complainant ? He was harassed at the hands of the Opposite Party because he patiently waited for take-off of the flight but twice it did not take off. Even in the written statement before the Forum, the Opposite Party admitted that the flight was not taken off because of refilling of gas. Moreover, it was the duty of the Opposite Party to make alternate arrangements for the passengers to another flight, so that the passengers could not be harassed but it did not do so. Even the plea of the appellant is that aircraft was arranged by the appellants by 1.30 PM on 06.09.2018, which flew by 2.00 PM to Chandigarh, in which other co passengers were ferried has no value at all because the appellant did not give any fixed time to the respondent/complainant for take-off of the flight. The complainant could not wait for unlimited period. Therefore, in order to avoid further suffering, the complainant had no option but to arrange another air ticket of jet airways for Rs.4025/-. The Counsel for the respondent/complainant has placed on record judgment dated 07.02.2017 passed by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the case titled as “Spicejet Ltd. Vs. Ranju Aery”, in which, paragraphs No.12 & 13 stated as under :-

“12. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is abundantly clear that the flight, which the complainants were supposed to board, got cancelled, although all other flights from Kolkata airport were operational. The OP Airlines have not explained anywhere whether there were any genuine reasons for the cancellation of the flight. Merely taking the plea that there were technical and operational defects, does not cut much ice in view of the fact that the other flights were operating normally and hence, the general conditions at the airport or the weather conditions etc. were conducive to the operation of the flights. The OP Airlines have also not explained anywhere whether they took any concrete steps to take care of the passengers of their cancelled flight and to make arrangements for their travel by some alternative method. The deficiency in service on the part of the OP Airlines is, therefore, writ large on the face of it, and they are liable to compensate the complainant on this score. Referring to the contention of the OP Airlines about the concluded contract etc. between the parties, reference may be made to an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in LIC of India v. The Consumer Education and Research Centre (1995) 5 SCC 482, where it has been laid down as follows:-

"47. It is, therefore, the settled law that if a contract or a clause in a contract is found unreasonable or unfair or irrational, one must look to the relative bargaining power of the contracting parties. In dotted line contracts there would be no occasion for a weaker party to bargain or to assume to have equal bargaining power. He has either to accept or leave the services or goods in terms of the dotted line contract. His option would be either to accept the unreasonable or unfair terms or forego the service for ever. With a view to have the services of the goods, the party enters into a contract with unreasonable or unfair terms contained therein and he would be left with no option but to sign the contract."

            13. It is made clear from the view taken in the case cited above that if a contract is found unreasonable or unfair or irrational, the same cannot be given affect to, in view of the fact that there is clear deficiency in service on the part of the OP Airlines, as they did not take any steps to provide an alternative to the passengers.”

In view of the aforesaid order, we are of the view that the  the Forum has rightly passed the impugned order.

13.           In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality, warranting the interference of this Commission.

14.                   For the reasons recorded above, this appeal being devoid of any merit, is dismissed with no order as to costs. The impugned order passed by the District Forum is upheld.

15.          Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of charge.

16.           File be consigned to the Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

March 16^th, 2020                                     Sd/-

                                                (RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI)

                                                                   PRESIDENT
                       

                                                                        Sd/-

                                                          (PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

                                                                        Sd/-

                                                        (RAJESH K. ARYA)

                                                                       MEMBER

 

rb