KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

FIRST APPEAL 303/2010

JUDGMENT DATED: 23..2..2011

PRESENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU            : PRESIDENT

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR               : MEMBER

1. King Fisher Airlines Ltd.,                          : APPELLANTS

    Rep. by its Chairman and

    Managing Director, UB Tower,

    Level 12, UB City,

    Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore -1.

2. Airport Manager,

    King Fisher Airlines Ltd.,

    Cochin International Airport,

     Nedumbassery.

(By Adv.M.Nizamudeen)

            Vs.

Dr.Jose.J,                                                     : RESPONDENT

Nedumpara, Principal,

Prajyothi Niketan College,

Pudukkad, Thrissur.

(By Adv.S.Reghukumar)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU  : PRESIDENT

          The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.128/08  in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam.  The appellants are under orders to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- and cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainant.

          2. The case of the complainant is that he is a Priest and the Principal of a College at Pudukkad. He availed the ticket from the opposite parties/Air Lines to travel from Mumbai to Cochin on 28.5.2006.  The ticket was booked on 8.5.06 and got confirmed on 9.5.06.  The time of departure was 8.05PM(20.05 hours). At around 16.40 Hrs. he got a message from the opposite party that the flight has been rescheduled to leave at 20.25 hours(8.25PM). On the same day at about 17.02 Hrs.(5.02PM) he received another SMS from the opposite party that the flight has been further rescheduled to 22.50Hrs.(10.50PM).  On the same day at 19 Hrs he got telephone call from the opposite party stating   that because of some problems, a few passengers would have to be deplaned and whether it will be acceptable for the complainant to change or delay his journey.  The complainant categorically told that he holds a confirmed ticket and he cannot delay the journey in view of his official responsibilities as the Principal of a College.  The complainant called up the customer care in Mumbai and enquired about the flight and was told that the complainant’s seat is confirmed.  The complainant left for the Airport at around 20.20 Hrs. At about 21.24Hrs.  he got a SMS stating that the said flight has been rescheduled and that the flight will leave at 23.45Hrs(11.45PM).  The complainant reached the Airport at 21Hrs. the opposite parties told that the flight will be further delayed.  The complainant and other passengers waited for nearly an hour.  The complainant and other 20 odd passengers were not issued any boarding passes.  Certain passengers confided with the Airlines staff and they disappeared from the check in lounge.  Only those who are well connected and those who were perceived to create problems were given boarding passes.  At around 23.5Hrs, the complainant and certain passengers were told that they could not be accommodated and that alternative arrangements have been made with  Air India to accommodate the  above passengers on an Air India night flight.  The complainant was also given a letter that he could get full refund of the ticket as well as  a complementary one-way ticket.  The complainant and other 20 passengers were taken on an Air Deccan bus to the Sahar International Airport.  But the Air India officials stated that there is no communication  between Air India and Air Deccan on the matter and that they can not accommodate them.  The complainant have purchased a ticket of Indian Airlines flight to Kochi on the next day for a sum of Rs.5490/-. He had to take a cab from Airport and               reached the residence at 3.30 in the morning.  It is alleged that it is the practice from the particular Airline to indulge in excessive booking  till the last minute and avoid the passengers who got tickets for lower rates. Hence  the complainant has sought for compensation of Rs.55000/- and additional expenses incurred.

          3. The opposite parties have filed version contending denying the allegations.  It is stated that the load restriction on the flight was only due to  erroneous deployment of emergency slide which was subsequently declared inoperative.  Hence the opposite parties were constrained to restrict the number of passengers for  safety reasons.  Those passengers were denied boarding were given full refund and one complementary ticket also.  It is submitted that the boarding passes were issued on priority basis.  It is also submitted that the  opposite party Airlines being a low cost Airline has no tie up with any other Airlines.  As Air India had a flight to Cochin in the night the passengers were suggested to take a full refund at the earliest so that they can travel on Air India on their own.

          4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1,DW1; Exts.A1 to A8 and B1 to B4.

          5. The complainant who was examined as PW1 has stated that he did not avail complementary  ticket.  He has also stated that he could travel only on the next day.  He has also stated that it was the admission time in the college and he had to reach Cochin urgently.  The facts narrated  in the complaint that the flight was repeatedly rescheduled and that he declined  to delay journey as he held a confirmed ticket and that he had to reach Cochin urgently and that he was not told earlier that he cannot be carried in the flight has not been  disputed in the cross examination of PW1.  DW1 the Airport Manager of the opposite party has stated that he could not say how many passengers had booking in the particular flight on the particular day  although the capacity was 180.  The criteria for avoiding passengers in the particular flight was that only those who had to travel necessarily were accommodated.  He has also not produced the list of passengers who were not permitted to travel.  He has admitted that if the above lists were produced it will be possible to find out as to the amounts paid by the passengers who were avoided in the particular flight.  He has also stated that the highest rate of the particular flight is Rs.10000/- He has also  stated that the passengers who traveled at the flight is those who paid the highest rate.  It is seen from Ext.A1 ticket that the complainant has paid only Rs.2597.90 as the fare.  The opposite parties is not bound to make alternative arrangements. 

          6.We find that the attitude of the opposite party is totally unacceptable.  The opposite parties has not produced any objective evidence to establish that the particular passenger and others could not be accommodated on account of the mechanical problem.  Further the opposite parties have also not produced the list of bookings.  It was admitted that the passenger accommodated were those who paid highest fare.  The opposite parties are also bound to make alternative arrangements.  The complainant had to be tense throughout the day and had reached the place of residence only by about 3.30Hrs in the night.  He was shuttled from Airport to the another in the night.  He himself arranged for another ticket.  Taking into account the difficulties faced by the complainant we find that the amount of compensation ordered is not excessive at all.  We find that there is no patent illegality in the order of the Forum.  There is no scope for admitting the appeal.  The appellants/opposite parties are directed to make the payment within three months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant will entitled for interest at 12% from 3.10.09 the date of  order of the Forum.  In the result the appeal is dismissed in limine.

          Office will forward the copy of this order to the Forum urgently.

          JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU            : PRESIDENT

          S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                      : MEMBER

ps