DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 15 of 2019.

 

1. Sri Subhasish Datta,

S/O. Sri Kalidas Datta,

Resident of Mission Road, Kashipur,

Reshambagan, Khayerpur,

P.S.-Bodhjungnagar, 

Dist.-West Tripura....................................…......................................Complainant.

 

 

 -VERSUS-

 

 

1. The General Manager(Commercial),

AIR India Ltd. Eastern Region,

Airlines House, 39, Chittaranjan Avenue,

Kolkata-700012.

 

2. Station Manager,

AIR India Ltd.

Birchandra Manikya Airport,

Agartala, P.S.-Airport, Pin-799009,

Dist.-West Tripura........................................................................ Opposite parties.

 

       __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainants : Sri Debasish Saha,

  Smt. Poushali Datta,

  Advocates.

For the O.Ps.  : Sri Pradip Chakraborty,

  Smt. Sukriti Debnath,

  Advocates.  

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON :  01/11/2021.

J U D G M E N T

The Complainant Sri Subhasish Datta, set the law in motion by presenting the petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 complaining deficiency of service by the O.Ps.

Complainant's case, in brief, is that the Complainant has purchased a pet dog in the species/breed as Pit Bull for his domestic purpose and accordingly the Complainant along with his pet reached Kolkata Airport and he purchased a ticket bearing No.0982959592570/1/1 from Air India Flight No.AI-745 corresponding to PNR No.Z49YR dated 26/12/2018 scheduled to be departure at 1810 hrs. Complainant as per rules and norms of Air India he obtained a certificate of health of his dog from Dr. Chawla's pet Hospital on 23/12/2018 but when the Complainant produced the said certificate to the Air India Cargo counter they denied to accept the same, accordingly having no alternative as well as compelling circumstances at around 3 P.M. he had to go outside the Airport Lounge to collect a fresh health certificate of his pet and accordingly after being repeated requests of the Complainant as well as the local well wishers one Dr. Utpal Karmakar(VET) issued a health certificate for his pet dog and after being produced the said certificate they prepared a bill but due to non-availability of cash amount the Complainant produced the Debit card wherein one lady was in the counter she straight way denied to accept the Debit Card as the said facility was not in force in the Air India counter. He had to puzzled and started to sweating on the lounge for non-accepting the debit card, because of what he has no sufficient cash amount to pay the same being a patient of High Pressure with other diseases. Therefore, Complainant being a worst sufferer as a passenger of AIR India along with his pet he had to incur an handsome amount as a broker fees as well as for carrying out the pet cages. The Complainant humbly submits that he had to paid extra amount of Rs.5,000/- to the broker. 

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the services of the O.Ps. the complainant filed the complaint praying for compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-  under different heads namely cost of broker fees, mental agony, harassment and litigation cost.

Hence this case.

 

2. In due course of time notices were duly sent to O.Ps. from this Commission. 

  O.Ps. in response to the notices appeared before the Commission through their engaged Advocate. 

    The O.Ps. in their W.O. denied the claim and contentions of the complainant.    

The O.Ps. have thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint taking the plea that the O.Ps. did not commit any deficiency of service towards the Complainant.         

EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:-

 

3. From the record it appears that Complainant submitted his examination-in-chief as PW-I on 10/06/2019 and again another examination-in-chief is submitted by one Sri Subhash Datta claiming the Complainant as PW-I. Subsequently, Complainant again submitted examination-in-chief as PW-I dated 09/12/2019 that means Complainant submitted examination-in-chief on thrice though his name was wrongly mentioned as Subhash Datta instead of Subhasish Datta in the examination-in-chief on affidavit dated 01/10/2019.  The Complainant has produced 9 documents comprising 16 sheets under a Firisti dated 28/06/2019. The documents on identification have been marked as Exhibit – 1 Series. The complainant was however cross examined by the O.P. side. 

      On behalf of the O.Ps. one witness namely Sri Sujoy Ghosh, S/O. Lt. Dhananjoy Ghosh, resident of Gitanjali Apartment, Flat No.H-6, H.G. Basak Road, P.S.-West Agartala, Dist.-West Tripura as Station Manager of O.Ps. The witness of O.P. was not cross examined by the Complainant side as it is a summary trial.             

POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:-

      (i) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps towards the Complainant?

    (ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation/ relief as prayed for? 

 

5. ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES :-

         We have heard arguments from both sides. At the time of argument, Learned Counsel of the Complainant submitted that the Complainant purchased a pet dog in the species/breed as Pit Bull for his domestic purpose and accordingly the Complainant reached his destination along with his pet for catching flight from Kolkata to Agartala. He purchased a ticket bearing No.0982959592570/1/1 for Air India Flight No.AI-745 corresponding to PNR No.Z49YR dated 26/12/2018 scheduled to  be departure at 1810 hrs. Accordingly he observed all formalities as well as other paper transactions and they advised the Complainant to pay a sum of Rs.12,919/- only for booking the dog for travelling to Agartala. The Complainant as per rules and norms of Air India he obtained a certificate of health of his dog from Dr. Chawla's pet Hospital on 23/12/2018 but when the Complainant produced the said certificate to the Air India Cargo counter they denied to accept the same. Having no alternative as well as compelling circumstances at around 3 P.M. he had to go outside the Airport Lounge to collect a fresh health certificate of his pet. One Dr. Utpal Karmakar(VET) issued a health certificate for his pet dog and after being produced the said certificate they prepared a bill but due to non-availability of cash amount the Complainant produced the Debit card wherein one lady was in the counter she straight way denied to accept the Debit Card as the said facility was not in force in the Air India counter. Learned Advocate further submits that Complainant has been able to prove his complaint and entitled to get compensation.

                On the other hand Learned Counsel Mr. Pradip Chakraborty submitted that there was no denial on the part of Air India regarding the health certificate. The passenger's booking live Dog Cargo was issued initially vide Airway Bill 098-33462903 and later on cancelled at the behest of the passenger as he was short of the requisite charges to be paid at the Air India Cargo counter. Once passenger went out from the lounge to obtain cash.  Air India has never denied or challenged the authenticity of the health certificate. He further stated that EDC Swipe Machine is available in Domestic Cargo. Due to net work issues there are intermittent problems for connectivity. Consequent to the incident there have been no reported incident of credit card usages refusal at Domestic Cargo. Mr. Chakraborty further submitted that the Complainant has failed to adduce sufficient evidence in respect of deficiency in service. So, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.                          

   

6. DECISION   AND  REASONS  FOR  DECISIONS:- 

Both points are taken-up together for convenience for decisions. 

      We have carefully gone through the pleadings as well as evidence adduced from both sides including documentary evidence. 

From the oral evidence adduced by the Complainant side we found that Complainant submitted examination-in-chief on affidavit three times i.e. on 10/06/2019, 01/10/2019 & 09/12/2019. But Complainant while he was cross examined on witness box he stated that earlier on 10/06/2019 he submitted examination-in-chief on affidavit as PW-I.  Subsequently again he has submitted fresh examination-in-chief on affidavit on 09/12/2019 due to addition of new party but he omitted the second one. 

On perusal of the affidavit(second one) we found that it was sworm by one Subhash Datta, S/O. Sri Kalidash Datta and signature was put by Sri Subhasish Datta i.e. Complainant. We failed to understand why this second examination-in-chief of affidavit was submitted on behalf of the Complainant. However, on perusal of all oral evidence we found that crux of dispute is that on 26/12/2018 Complainant reported Kolkata Airport Lounge for catching Air India Flight No.AI-745 scheduled to be departure at 18.10 hrs. He had confirmed ticket and he brought a pet dog in the species / breed as Pit Bull for his domestic purpose and accordingly he observed all formalities like caging, holding, belt, taking weight as well as all other paper transactions and he had to pay a sum of Rs.12,919 only for booking the dog for travelling to Agartala. It is also found that he obtained a certificate of health of his dog from Dr. Chowla's Pet Hospital on 23/12/2018 but it was not accepted by the Airport Authority for which he had to collect another Vet certificate for his dog for which he was harassed. He further made allegation that the cargo counter did not accept his Debit card for making payment though he had  no sufficient cash with him for which he was compelled to collect money from out side the lounge from ATM counter. Ultimately, Complainant alleged that he was harassed mentally and he was also forced to incur additional expenditure for collecting fresh Veterinary certificate for his dog. 

In cross examination Complainant admitted that before issuing Boarding Card he went out from the Airport lounge to collect money due to shortage of requisite charge to be paid to Air India(Cargo Counter). Suggestion was put by the O.P. that Air India Authority never challenged the authenticity of the health certificate of the dog(previous one). Complainant further in cross admitted that ultimately Air India accepted his booking of the dog. He can not say whether on the date of journey the internet service was available or not in the lounge area but ATM service was not available. Another suggestion was given by the O.P. that his Debit card was not refused by the counter of the domestic cargo. 

On the other hand one Sri Sujoy Ghosh as OPW-I deposed that Air India Authority did not deny the health certificate issued from Dr. Chawla's Pet Hospital. The witness stated that booking was initially issued for the live Dog Cargo vide Airway Bill 098-33462903 and later on it was cancelled at the behest of the passenger and he had shortage of money for requisite charges to be paid at the Air India Cargo Counter. The passenger went out from the lounge to obtain cash. The witness of the O.P. deposed that Air India staff at domestic cargo were always courteous with the Complainant and there was no non-cooperation as well as no negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. 

We have perused the exhibited documents submitted from the side of the Complainant. Complainant has failed to submit second health certificate of the dog or copy of it which was collected by the Complainant.   From the Exhibit-1 series(Complaint petition) dated 26/12/2018), we found that Complainant made an allegation in respect of Debit card as it was not accepted by the counter. But he did not use any word about harassment in respect of Veterinary certificate of his dog. From the cross examination of the Complainant we found that before issuing Boarding Card he went out from the Airport lounge to collect money due to shortage of requisite charge to be paid to Air India(Cargo Counter). Complainant in cross admitted that he had no knowledge whether internet service was available at that time in the lounge area for using ATM card.  O.P. categorically in their evidence stated that there was no negligence or non cooperation from the side of Air India with the Complainant. Internet service may be interrupted at any time and for that we can not say that it was harassment caused by the O.P.   

 

7. On careful appreciation of entire evidences we are in the opinion that Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. and as a result complaint is dismissed & no costs.           

Supply a certified copy of the judgment to both the parties free of cost. 

     Announced.

 

 

SRI  RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.