PER SHRI. S. G. CHABUKSWAR – HON’BLE MEMBER
1) This is a complaint for the reliefs of compensation Rs.1,20,000/- on the ground that the Opposite Party rendered deficiency in service to the Complainant and cost of the complaint under Sec.12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2) The case of the Complainant in short is as under –
The Complainant is the resident of Deendayal Nagar, Mulund (E), Mumbai- 400 081. The Opposite Party is rendering the service of air travel from their airline to the passengers. On 26/02/2012, the Complainant had booked tickets for three persons from Mumbai to Delhi on payment of Rs.12,000/- and from Delhi to Leh (Kashmir) for Rs.16,215/- of Flight No.AI-445 having boarding time 7.10 hrs. The PNR No. of the tickets was HNZK1 for three passengers namely the Complainant herself Mrs. Ameeta Gupta, her husband Pradeep and son Dheeraj. The Complainant had also booked return tickets from Shrinagar to Mumbai on payment of Rs.42,000/-.
3) The further case of the Complainant is that, on 02/05/2012 when the Complainant and her husband, son reached Delhi Airport at 05.15 a.m. for check-in at that time she was informed at Air India Counter that the said flight have been preponed to 5.45 a.m. for that day and hence, the check-in was closed for the day. The Complainant had repeatedly requested to the Duty Manager for making alternate arrangement for her and her family members but the Duty Manager expressed helplessness to do anything.
4) The further case of the Complainant is that Opposite Party had not given prior intimation to the Complainant regarding the preponment of flight no.AI/445 on 02/05/2012 at 05.45 a.m. instead of 07.10 a.m. On 02/05/2012 no other flight was available. The Complainant herself had made alternative arrangement for booking tickets for next available flight for the next day i.e. 03/05/2012 on payment of additional charges at the higher rate of Rs.21,018/- by GO AIR Flight No.G8-159 having PNR No.ST7KSL for the 3 passengers. The Complainant unnecessarily had to rush to another domestic Airport located at a distance place alongwith baggages purely for negligence of the Opposite Party. The Complainant sustained financial loss due to the transport and further accommodation for hotel booking. The planning of the tour of the Complainant was disturbed due to non making alternate arrangement for air travel by the Opposite Party. The Complainant had curtailed their two days plan for Numbra Valley due to loss of one day time because of missing of the flight of Air India. The Complainant caused mental agony due to the inconvenience and additional expenses of halt. Hence, this complaint for the reliefs mentioned in above para no.1.
5) The Opposite Party has resisted the claim by fling written statement. The Opposite Party has admitted that on 02/05/2012 the schedule flight AI-445 was proponed from 07.10 hrs. to 05.45 hrs. The contention of Opposite Party is that as per counter closure norms, check-in activities were closed 45 minutes prior to schedule departure time. Hence, on 02/05/2012 the passengers who reported around 05.15 hrs. could not be accommodated in concern flight. The Complainant, her husband, son and one another passenger missed the flight due to proponment. The above passengers had shown their displeasure as they were not communicated the revised timing. On checking the PNR of the tickets of the Complainant, her family members and one another passenger it was found that their contact numbers were not updated in PNR Numbers and only their travel agent’s toll free number was available in PNR. The Complainant alongwith two other passengers had booked the tickets to travel Delhi to Leh (Kashmir) through Flight No.AI-445 on 02/05/2012 through their booking travel agent M/s. Yatra Online Internet Global Services. The Complainant had not updated the contact number in passengers PNR while booking the tickets. The Complainant had only given toll free number of travel agent Yatra Services. As per the practice of Opposite Party any change in schedule timing and routing is communicated directly to the passengers by the call centre. However, due to non-availability of contact number of the Complainant in passengers PNR list of the concerned flight Opposite Party could not communicate to the Complainant the change in the schedule timing of the concern flight.
6) The further contention of the Opposite Party is that, the staff of the Opposite Party had informed and advised to the Complainant to travel by M/s. Go Air Flight, the earliest available flight to concerned sector on 03/05/2012 by going to terminal 1D from T3 for making alternate arrangement of travel. The Complainant alongwith two other passengers chose to travel by M/s. Go Air Flight on 03/05/2012 and collected full refund of their tickets of Air India Flight. The Opposite Party has denied that there is deficiency in service to the Complainant on the part of Opposite Party. The Opposite Party has denied that the Complainant caused mental torture due to the missing of flight on 02/05/2012. The Opposite Party has denied all rival contentions of the Complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost.
7) The Complainant has submitted her affidavit of evidence. The Opposite Party has submitted affidavit of evidence of P. Krishnan, Asst. Manager. Both the parties have filed their respective written notes of arguments. Perused the documents produced on the record by the parties. We heard oral arguments of Shri. S.M. Sudan, Ld.Advocate for the Complainant and Smt. Pradnya Lade, Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Party.
8) Admittedly on 26/02/2012, the Complainant had booked tickets for herself, her husband and son to travel by airline from Mumbai to Delhi on payment of Rs.12,000/- and from Delhi to Leh (Kashmir) for Rs.16,215/- of Flight No.AI-445 having PNR No.HNZK1. The Complainant had also booked the returned ticket from Shrinagar to Mumbai on payment of Rs.42,000/-. The Complainant had booked the above tickets through their booking travel agent M/s. Yatra Online Internet Global Services. On 02/05/2012, the departure time of the flight from Delhi to Leh (Kashmir) was at 7.10 a.m. On 02/05/2012, the Complainant and her family members had reached Delhi Airport at 5.15 a.m. for check-in. At that time the Complainant was informed at the Air India Counter that the said flight has been preponed to 5.45 a.m. for that day. The change of schedule time of departure of flight to 5.45 a.m. instead of 7.10 a.m. was not communicated to the Complainant.
9) As per the case of the Complainant it was the responsibility of the Opposite Party to communicate the above said change to her. As against this the contention of the Opposite Party is that, they could not communicate the above change to the Complainant as her contact number was not mentioned in the PNR tickets. As per the practice of the Opposite Party any change in schedule timing and routine is communicated by the call centre to the passengers directly. It is not the case of the Opposite Party that they had communicated the proponment of concern flight to the travel agent Yatra Services from whom the Complainant had booked air tickets. The Opposite Party was having responsibility for making necessary changes in the system for not issuing air tickets/PNR Numbers to the passengers without taking their contact numbers. If the Opposite Party would have communicated the change in the schedule timing of the concerned flight to the travel agent Yatra Services then it was the responsibility of the said agent to communicate the change of schedule time to the Complainant. The Opposite Party has accepted the booking of the Complainant by issuing tickets and PNR Numbers without taking her contact number and this is the deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party.
10) The Complainant has deposed on oath in the affidavit of evidence the entire facts narrated by her in the complaint. As per the evidence of the Complainant due to missing of flight the planning of her tour was disturbed. The Complainant curtailed two days tour plan of Numbra Valley due to loss of one day and due to missing of flight. As per the evidence of the Complainant due to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party she paid excess amount Rs.4,803/- for booking the ticket of Go Airlines and also made expenditure for hoteling Rs.15,000/- and for conveyance (Taxi) Rs.5,000/- for 1 day at Delhi. Thus, according to the Complainant, due to missing of flight of Opposite Party the Complainant had to incur an extra expenditure of Rs.24,803/-.
11) The Complainant has claimed total compensation for mental torture and inconvenience caused to her and her husband and son to the tune of Rs.1,20,000/-. We hold that the said compensation claimed by the Complainant is little bit exorbitant. We find that considering the inconvenience caused to the Complainant and her family members such as, one day unnecessarily halt at Delhi and booking of ticket at higher price. The Opposite Party is required to compensate the Complainant on that count to the tour of Rs.10,000/-. We also hold that the Complainant and her family members had reached at the counter of the Opposite Party at 5.15 a.m. and the Opposite Party without intimation to the Complainant had preponed the flight of 7.10 a.m. to 5.45 a.m. ought to have considered that the Complainant and her family members could have been accommodated in the same flight which was preponed. The Opposite Party if would have accommodated the Complainant and her family members in the same flight the further inconvenience as well as curtailing tour program of two days would not require to be suffered by the Complainant and her family members. We therefore, hold that the Opposite Party by providing deficient service to the Complainant and her family members is liable to pay compensation to the Complainant, her husband and son each to the tune of Rs.15,000/- i.e. in total Rs.45,000/-. From the evidence on record, it appears that the Opposite Party has not made any alternative arrangement for the Complainant on the same day or on the next day flight also. The Opposite Party has only refunded the amount of air ticket from Delhi to Leh (Kashmir) to the tune of Rs.16,215/-. However, as discussed above, the Complainant and her family members were forced to halt at Delhi for one day and tour programme of her family members was disturbed due to missing of flight. In our view the Complainant has thus, proved that she and her family members suffered mental torture, hardship and inconvenience due to deficient service provided to the Complainant. As discussed above the Complainant is therefore, entitled to Rs.45,000/- as compensation for mental agony herself and her husband and son and Rs.10,000/- towards extra expenditure which she was required to incur for further arrangement from Delhi to Leh (Kashmir). The Complainant is also entitled to Rs.5,000/- towards cost of this complaint.
In the result we passed the following order -
O R D E R
- Complaint No.155/2012 is partly allowed with cost as under -
- Opposite Party is directed to pay to the Complainant compensation Rs.55,000/- (Rs. Fifty Five Thousand Only) towards mental torture and extra expenditure incurred by the Complainant.
- Opposite Party is directed to pay to the Complainant Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand Only) towards the cost of the complaint.
- Opposite Party do pay the amount mentioned in para no. ii and iii to the Complainant within one month from the receipt of this order.
v. Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.
