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. 36/2010 Filed on 03/02/2010

Dated: 30..04..2010

Complainants:

1. V. Krishnamurthy I.A.S (Rtd.) (Former Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Kerala & RBI Banking Ombudsman) presently Chief Executive, SUT Medical College & Sole Arbitrator, Roads & Bridges Development Corporation of Kerala Government.

2. Dr. V.G. Chellam M.D., (Former Principal, Trivandrum Medical College) presently Senior Consultant, KIMS Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram.

Address: Mithila, TC-14/236(1) Kumarapuram, Poonthi Road, Medical College – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 011.

Opposite party:

Manager, Etihad Airways, 3^rd Floor, Felicity Square, Opp. AG's Office, M.G. Road, Statue, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 001.

This O.P having been heard on 05..04..2010, the Forum on 30..04..2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that, complainants booked on Etihad Airways flight EY 150 on 1/11/2009 from Chicago to Trivandrum, that their bookings and seats 19K and 19H (Non smoking) were confirmed as early as 6/8/2009, that they had a very bad experience in the hands of the check-in staff at Chicago that they were denied their allotted seats, and after a great deal of arguments when there was little time left for departure of the flight, they were allotted the rearmost seats near toilets, and that the noise, the heavy rush of passenger traffic to the toilets and disagreeable odour did not allow them to have any rest or sleep at all. Complainants are Orthodox Brahmins and strict vegetarians, although they had confirmed vegetarian Hindu meals, they were denied the same and eggs were slapped on them, though they strongly protested, there was no effect whatsoever and they had to starve. Soon after return, they complained to opposite party on 6/11/2009. Opposite party, in their response dated 22/11/2009 fully admitted the flagrant violations of agreed and contracted conditions of travel and their utter failure. Opposite party has thus committed deficiency in service. Hence this complaint to direct opposite party to refund the fare from Chicago to Trivandrum, along with compensation and cost to complainants.

2. Notice to opposite party returned unclaimed. Opposite party did not turn up to contest the case, nor did opposite party file version. Hence opposite party set exparte.

3. The points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?

2. Whether the complainants are entitled for refund of fare?

3. Whether the complainants are entitled to compensation. If so, at what amount?

4. Whether the complainants are entitled to get cost?

In support of the complaint, 1^st complainant has been examined and Exts. P1 to P3(c) were marked. In rebuttal, opposite party did not file version, affidavit or documents.

4. Points (i) to (iv): The 1^st complainant herein was the former Chief Secretary to the Government of Kerala and RBI Banking Ombudsman and is presently Chief Executive, SUT Medical College and Sole Arbitrator, Roads and Bridges Development Corporation of Kerala Government. 2^nd complainant is the wife, who was the former Principal of Trivandrum Medical College. Opposite party is an International Airline that is Etihad Airways. Complainants are Orthodox Brahmins and strict vegetarians. It has been the case of the complainants that they booked with opposite party for 1/11/2009 from Chicago to Trivandrum, that their bookings and seats 19K and 19H (Non smoking) were confirmed as early as 6^th August 2009, and that while making booking for the aforesaid trip a special specific demand was placed by the complainants (being strict vegetarians) on the opposite party for providing strict vegetarian food. It has also been the case of the complainants that on their return journey - from Chicago to Trivandrum they were kept waiting for a long time at Chicago Airport and were callously denied their allotted seats even after they showed the computer print-out, that after a great deal of arguments when there was little time left for departure of the flight, opposite party condescendingly allotted their seats which were the rearmost seats near the toilets and they were left with no alternative but to proceed to board the flight hurriedly. It has also been the case of the complainants that though they had confirmed vegetarian meals, they were denied the same and eggs were slapped on them, thereby they had to starve throughout. Ext. P1 is the computer print-out of reservations. As per Ext. P1, date of reservation: 6^th August 2009, Reservation I D: WQLFF8, Flight Etihad Airways (EY) 150, Etihad Airways Confirmation Number: 5LDZ7E, Depart: 19.30 Sunday 1/11/09, O'Hare Intl Arpt (ORD), Terminal 5, Chicago, IL, Class of Service: Economy (K) Seats 19K and 19H (Non – smoking) Confirmed, Special Service Requested; Hindu Meal Confirmed, Ext. P2 series are copies of complainants' E-mails dated 6/11/09, 23/11/09 and respondent's E-mail dated 22/11/09. Ext. P3 series are copies of receipts of Air fare. Being disturbed and humiliated by the behaviour of the opposite party, the complainants on their return addressed to opposite party complaining about the rude arrogant and impolite behaviour of the opposite party's staff, refusal to accommodate complainants in reserved seats and non serving of vegetarian food to the complainants despite specific recorded demand. Opposite party responded to complainants vide its E-mail dated 22/11/09 by Ext.P2(c). As per Ext.P2(c) opposite party's Guest Affairs Senior Officer has responded as under: "Seating is a basic and key part of our in-flight service. We want every passenger to be comfortable and to enjoy travelling with us. While Etihad is unable to guarantee any specific seat, it was clearly disappointing that your request was not met. We do endeavour to accommodate all customers seating requests, although it is not always possible. I understand your annoyance in the circumstances you described and apologise for letting you down.

With regard to your vegetarian Hindu meal request, it was with great regret that I learned your meal was not onboard when you travelled with us recently. I can fully appreciate the disappointment. The meal service is an integral part of the enjoyment of the service and an individual your choice and requirements are essential to its fulfilment.

Your request was entered in your reservation. However the investigation did not show exactly what went wrong and there seems to have been a breakdown in the communications between our Reservations and our catering people. I have made the Catering Manager aware of our failure on this occasion. We are very conscious of the importance of and committed to getting it right for our customers. Please accept my apology, on behalf of Etihad Airways, for disappointment caused. Etihad is very conscious of its service. Our objective is to grow our business. The In-flight Service we offer is central to building repeat custom. It is our policy to follow-up on all customers' comments and incorporates them into the operational review of the manager responsible for the service. A copy of your comments was sent to the Service Manager. Please be assured that, what you described is not typical of our services.

That said it does not detract from the fact that your experiences with us, was far from the standard of service which Etihad like to offer guests. As way of a goodwill gesture for the inconvenience you and Dr. Chellam endured we would like to offer 5,000 Etihad guest miles each to be awarded to your accounts, these miles can be utilised towards future Etihad flights and/or any of the 1500+rewards available on the Etihad Guest Reward Shop. I hope you will accept these miles as an extension of our apologies for not meeting your expectations".

5. The complainants' vide their E-mail dated 6/11/09 to opposite party by Ext. P2 demanded urgent and fair compensations for the flagrant viiolations of agreed and contracted conditions. Opposite party did not turn up and contest the case by filing version. Ext. P2(c) reply itself would establish deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. It is pertinent to note that booking was done as early as 6^th August 2009. seats 19K and 19H (Non-smoking) were confirmed and vegetarian Hindu meal was also confirmed. Non-providing of confirmed seats would amount to deficiency in service. Non-providing of vegetarian meals and thrusting non-vegetarian food to Orthodox Brahmins and strict vegetarian complainants was an unendurable insult and outrageous invasion of their fundamental human rights. The letter of request written by opposite party by Ext.P2(c) would raise the inference of the allegations of impolite or arrogant behaviour of the members being true.

6. The complainants who were very honoured Senior Professionals and Senior Citizens and strict vegetarians have suffered so much of mental agony and humiliation. It make out a case of grossest kind of deficiency in service.

7. In Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Sing, II(2004) CPJ 12 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has widened the connotation of the word compensation appearing Consumer Protection Act to such an extent that it takes in its fold each and every element which one suffers on account of offence mentioned in Consumer Protection Act namely deficiency in service, sale of defective goods, restrictive trade practices, unfair trade practice etc. The observations made in this regard are very pitty and need to be quoted in full. These are under: "The word compensation is of very wide connotation. It may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to compensation for physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. The provision of the Consumer Protection Act enable a consumer to claim and empower the Commission to redress any injustice done. The Commission or Forum is entitled to award not only value of goods or services but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him. The Commission/Forum must determine that such sufferance is due to malafide or capricious or oppressive act. It can then determine amount for which the authority is liable to compensate the consumer for his sufferance due to misfeasance in public office by the officers. Such compensation is for indicating the strength of law".

8. Taking overall view of the matter and the agony and harassment suffered by the complainants we deem that a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 50,000/- besides Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation would meet the ends of justice.

In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite party shall pay the complainants a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation along with a cost of Rs.1,000/- within two months from the date of receipt of this order. The amount compensated will carry interest at the rate of 12% if not paid within the aforesaid period.

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 30^th day of April, 2010.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT

BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

ad.

C.C.No: 36/2010

APPENDIX

I. Complainants' witness: PW1 : V. Krishnamoorthy

II. Complainants' documents:

P1 : Photocopy of the computer print-out of reservations P2 : Series are copies of complainants' and opposite party's E- mail P3 : Series are copies of receipts of Air fare

III. Opposite party's witness: NIL

IV. Opposite party's documents: NIL

PRESIDENT.

ad. 

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. 36/2010 Filed on 03/02/2010

Dated: 30..04..2010

Complainants:

1. V. Krishnamurthy I.A.S (Rtd.) (Former Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Kerala & RBI Banking Ombudsman) presently Chief Executive, SUT Medical College & Sole Arbitrator, Roads & Bridges Development Corporation of Kerala Government.

2. Dr. V.G. Chellam M.D., (Former Principal, Trivandrum Medical College) presently Senior Consultant, KIMS Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram.

Address: Mithila, TC-14/236(1) Kumarapuram, Poonthi Road, Medical College – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 011.

Opposite party:

Manager, Etihad Airways, 3^rd Floor, Felicity Square, Opp. AG's Office, M.G. Road, Statue, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 001.

This O.P having been heard on 05..04..2010, the Forum on 30..04..2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that, complainants booked on Etihad Airways flight EY 150 on 1/11/2009 from Chicago to Trivandrum, that their bookings and seats 19K and 19H (Non smoking) were confirmed as early as 6/8/2009, that they had a very bad experience in the hands of the check-in staff at Chicago that they were denied their allotted seats, and after a great deal of arguments when there was little time left for departure of the flight, they were allotted the rearmost seats near toilets, and that the noise, the heavy rush of passenger traffic to the toilets and disagreeable odour did not allow them to have any rest or sleep at all. Complainants are Orthodox Brahmins and strict vegetarians, although they had confirmed vegetarian Hindu meals, they were denied the same and eggs were slapped on them, though they strongly protested, there was no effect whatsoever and they had to starve. Soon after return, they complained to opposite party on 6/11/2009. Opposite party, in their response dated 22/11/2009 fully admitted the flagrant violations of agreed and contracted conditions of travel and their utter failure. Opposite party has thus committed deficiency in service. Hence this complaint to direct opposite party to refund the fare from Chicago to Trivandrum, along with compensation and cost to complainants.

2. Notice to opposite party returned unclaimed. Opposite party did not turn up to contest the case, nor did opposite party file version. Hence opposite party set exparte.

3. The points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?

2. Whether the complainants are entitled for refund of fare?

3. Whether the complainants are entitled to compensation. If so, at what amount?

4. Whether the complainants are entitled to get cost?

In support of the complaint, 1^st complainant has been examined and Exts. P1 to P3(c) were marked. In rebuttal, opposite party did not file version, affidavit or documents.

4. Points (i) to (iv): The 1^st complainant herein was the former Chief Secretary to the Government of Kerala and RBI Banking Ombudsman and is presently Chief Executive, SUT Medical College and Sole Arbitrator, Roads and Bridges Development Corporation of Kerala Government. 2^nd complainant is the wife, who was the former Principal of Trivandrum Medical College. Opposite party is an International Airline that is Etihad Airways. Complainants are Orthodox Brahmins and strict vegetarians. It has been the case of the complainants that they booked with opposite party for 1/11/2009 from Chicago to Trivandrum, that their bookings and seats 19K and 19H (Non smoking) were confirmed as early as 6^th August 2009, and that while making booking for the aforesaid trip a special specific demand was placed by the complainants (being strict vegetarians) on the opposite party for providing strict vegetarian food. It has also been the case of the complainants that on their return journey - from Chicago to Trivandrum they were kept waiting for a long time at Chicago Airport and were callously denied their allotted seats even after they showed the computer print-out, that after a great deal of arguments when there was little time left for departure of the flight, opposite party condescendingly allotted their seats which were the rearmost seats near the toilets and they were left with no alternative but to proceed to board the flight hurriedly. It has also been the case of the complainants that though they had confirmed vegetarian meals, they were denied the same and eggs were slapped on them, thereby they had to starve throughout. Ext. P1 is the computer print-out of reservations. As per Ext. P1, date of reservation: 6^th August 2009, Reservation I D: WQLFF8, Flight Etihad Airways (EY) 150, Etihad Airways Confirmation Number: 5LDZ7E, Depart: 19.30 Sunday 1/11/09, O'Hare Intl Arpt (ORD), Terminal 5, Chicago, IL, Class of Service: Economy (K) Seats 19K and 19H (Non – smoking) Confirmed, Special Service Requested; Hindu Meal Confirmed, Ext. P2 series are copies of complainants' E-mails dated 6/11/09, 23/11/09 and respondent's E-mail dated 22/11/09. Ext. P3 series are copies of receipts of Air fare. Being disturbed and humiliated by the behaviour of the opposite party, the complainants on their return addressed to opposite party complaining about the rude arrogant and impolite behaviour of the opposite party's staff, refusal to accommodate complainants in reserved seats and non serving of vegetarian food to the complainants despite specific recorded demand. Opposite party responded to complainants vide its E-mail dated 22/11/09 by Ext.P2(c). As per Ext.P2(c) opposite party's Guest Affairs Senior Officer has responded as under: "Seating is a basic and key part of our in-flight service. We want every passenger to be comfortable and to enjoy travelling with us. While Etihad is unable to guarantee any specific seat, it was clearly disappointing that your request was not met. We do endeavour to accommodate all customers seating requests, although it is not always possible. I understand your annoyance in the circumstances you described and apologise for letting you down.

With regard to your vegetarian Hindu meal request, it was with great regret that I learned your meal was not onboard when you travelled with us recently. I can fully appreciate the disappointment. The meal service is an integral part of the enjoyment of the service and an individual your choice and requirements are essential to its fulfilment.

Your request was entered in your reservation. However the investigation did not show exactly what went wrong and there seems to have been a breakdown in the communications between our Reservations and our catering people. I have made the Catering Manager aware of our failure on this occasion. We are very conscious of the importance of and committed to getting it right for our customers. Please accept my apology, on behalf of Etihad Airways, for disappointment caused. Etihad is very conscious of its service. Our objective is to grow our business. The In-flight Service we offer is central to building repeat custom. It is our policy to follow-up on all customers' comments and incorporates them into the operational review of the manager responsible for the service. A copy of your comments was sent to the Service Manager. Please be assured that, what you described is not typical of our services.

That said it does not detract from the fact that your experiences with us, was far from the standard of service which Etihad like to offer guests. As way of a goodwill gesture for the inconvenience you and Dr. Chellam endured we would like to offer 5,000 Etihad guest miles each to be awarded to your accounts, these miles can be utilised towards future Etihad flights and/or any of the 1500+rewards available on the Etihad Guest Reward Shop. I hope you will accept these miles as an extension of our apologies for not meeting your expectations".

5. The complainants' vide their E-mail dated 6/11/09 to opposite party by Ext. P2 demanded urgent and fair compensations for the flagrant viiolations of agreed and contracted conditions. Opposite party did not turn up and contest the case by filing version. Ext. P2(c) reply itself would establish deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. It is pertinent to note that booking was done as early as 6^th August 2009. seats 19K and 19H (Non-smoking) were confirmed and vegetarian Hindu meal was also confirmed. Non-providing of confirmed seats would amount to deficiency in service. Non-providing of vegetarian meals and thrusting non-vegetarian food to Orthodox Brahmins and strict vegetarian complainants was an unendurable insult and outrageous invasion of their fundamental human rights. The letter of request written by opposite party by Ext.P2(c) would raise the inference of the allegations of impolite or arrogant behaviour of the members being true.

6. The complainants who were very honoured Senior Professionals and Senior Citizens and strict vegetarians have suffered so much of mental agony and humiliation. It make out a case of grossest kind of deficiency in service.

7. In Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Sing, II(2004) CPJ 12 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has widened the connotation of the word compensation appearing Consumer Protection Act to such an extent that it takes in its fold each and every element which one suffers on account of offence mentioned in Consumer Protection Act namely deficiency in service, sale of defective goods, restrictive trade practices, unfair trade practice etc. The observations made in this regard are very pitty and need to be quoted in full. These are under: "The word compensation is of very wide connotation. It may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to compensation for physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. The provision of the Consumer Protection Act enable a consumer to claim and empower the Commission to redress any injustice done. The Commission or Forum is entitled to award not only value of goods or services but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him. The Commission/Forum must determine that such sufferance is due to malafide or capricious or oppressive act. It can then determine amount for which the authority is liable to compensate the consumer for his sufferance due to misfeasance in public office by the officers. Such compensation is for indicating the strength of law".

8. Taking overall view of the matter and the agony and harassment suffered by the complainants we deem that a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 50,000/- besides Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation would meet the ends of justice.

In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite party shall pay the complainants a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation along with a cost of Rs.1,000/- within two months from the date of receipt of this order. The amount compensated will carry interest at the rate of 12% if not paid within the aforesaid period.

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 30^th day of April, 2010.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT

BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

ad.

C.C.No: 36/2010

APPENDIX

I. Complainants' witness: PW1 : V. Krishnamoorthy

II. Complainants' documents:

P1 : Photocopy of the computer print-out of reservations P2 : Series are copies of complainants' and opposite party's E- mail P3 : Series are copies of receipts of Air fare

III. Opposite party's witness: NIL

IV. Opposite party's documents: NIL

PRESIDENT.