Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

208/2007

Ashok R.Thakkar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Go Air(india) Pvt. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sathosh Ukkur

16 Nov 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   24.04.2007

                                                                        Date of Order :   16.11.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

                                   PRESENT: THIRU. M.MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B. M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT            

                                                        TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

                            DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.NO.208/2007

THURSDAY THIS  16^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017

1.  Ashok R. Thakkar,

S/o. R.V. Thakkar

2. Varun Takkar (minor),

Rep. by father and natural guardian,

Ashok R.Thakkar,

Both residing at 21/2, Mc Nichols Road,

Chetpet,

Chennai 600 031.                                           Complainant

                                        ..Vs..

1. Go Air (India) Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Managing Director Mr.Wadia,

Paper Box House,

Off Mahakali, Caves Road,

Andheri East,

Mumbai 400 093.

2. M/s. Sakthi Tours and Travels,

Rep. by its Proprietor Mr.P.V.Ramesh,

Desabandhu Plaza,

47, Whites Road,

Royapettah,

Chennai 600 014.                                          Opposite parties

Counsel for Complainant          :   M/s. Santhosh Ukkur        

Counsel for opposite parties     :   M/s. G.Baskar & others  

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for mental agonyand to pay Rs.25,000/- as cost of the complaint.

1. The averment of the complaint in brief are as follows:

         The complainant submit that  the 1^st complainant booked ticket trough the 2^nd opposite party who is an agent of the 1^st opposite party at Chennai and on behalf of 2^nd  complainant is minor Varun Thakkar  for journey dated 20.10.2006 to depart at 22.30 hours from Pune to Chennai.  The complainants further state that the ticket booked at Chennai.  Hence the cause of action is arise at Chennai and this forum having territorial jurisdiction.  Further the  complainants state that the complainant made enquiries with the 1^st opposite party and was assured that the 1^st opposite party was equipped to handle unaccompanied  minor and that good care would be taken  of the 2^nd complainant on his travel from Pune to Chennai.   Further the  complainant state that the 2^nd complainant escorted to the Pune Airport by One Mr. Vikram Kalloo a friend of 1^st complainant.  The 2^nd  complainant was brought to the Pune airport much prior to the reporting time and the ticket printout was handed over to the 2^nd complainant airport at 8.00 p.m.       Further the complainants state that Mr. Vikram Kallo entrusted the 2^nd complainant to the Airport staff of the 1^st opposite party at about 8.00 p.m. on 20.10.2006 after filing in the Unaccompanied Minor Declaration form which is also stated by the 2^nd complainant.    After some time Mr.Vikram Kalloo was informed by the staff of the 1^st opposite party that the 2^nd complainant had been taken into  the security area and there was no need for him to wait anymore at the airport       Further the complainant also state that the 2^nd complainant along with other two minor children was made  to sit behind the check-in counter of the 1^st opposite party at the Pune Airport and when the staff of the 1^st opposite party began to issue boarding passes, they were approached by the 2^nd complainant for issue of the boarding pass.  However the check in counter staff of the 1^st opposite party informed the 2^nd complainant that they would be checked in later. Further the complainant state that at about 10.30. p.m  with utter shock the 1^st complainant received  a call from the 2^nd complainant stating that he had not been checked in into the flight and as a result will not be reaching Chennai on the said flight.   Immediately the 1^st complainant to contact the Airport Manager of the 1^st opposite party to find out why the 2^nd complainant was not put on the flight to Chennai for that the 1^st opposite party who informed that the 2^nd complainant was not check in due to overlooked by mistake amounts to deficiency of service.     As such the act of  the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  Hence this complaint is filed.

2.    The brief averments in the Written Version field by  the   1^st opposite party is  as follows:

The  1^st  opposite parties deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.     The 1^st opposite party state that the allegation that one Mr.Vikram Kalloo, escorted the 2^nd complainant  had handed over him to the airport staff of the 1^st opposite party on 8.00 p.m on 20.10.2006 is utter false and denied since neither the complainant nor Mr. Vikram Kallo has not been stated anything about the details of the staff.   Equally none of the staff entrusted  to give any assurance to such minor passenger.    Further the 1^st opposite party state that none of the minor children who had checked in  at the  checking counter had been made to wait behind the checking counter.   The minor children who were checked in were taken care of by the airport staff and were escorted to the security area under the guidance of the airlines official, who took care of the children till they were put to board into the aircraft.   The averment that the check in counter staff had asked the 2^nd complainant to wait and informed that he would be checked in later is utterly false.   Ordinarily the airline staff does not entertain or accept minor children until the escort checks them in at the check in counter and hands the child over to the airline staff.   Once the children are accepted after check-in they are taken through the security area under the custody of airline staff.   The same was followed in the case also.  

Unaccompanied Minors: Go Air does not carry unaccompanied minors under 5 years.  Escort and /or special facilities are not available.  Children under the age of 5 must be accompanied on the same reservation by a passenger over the age of 16 years.   Go Air will carry minors, aged 5-16, upon completion of signed indemnity form at the point of check in at each departure airport, by a parent or guardian of the minor.   Passengers aged 5-16 years travelling unaccompanied must present the required valid photo ID prior to check-in.   Parents or guardians must remain at the airport until the flight has departed.”

Further the learned counsel for the 1^st opposite party state that the 1^st  complainant  had neither informed the 1^st opposite party about the travel of the unaccompanied minor nor signed an indemnity bound as accorded by the procedure of the Airline company.    Further the  1^st opposite party state that the 2^nd complainant had not even been checked at the check in counter there was no necessity to provide a safe place for the 2^nd complainant to wait.  Since the 2^nd complainant had not checked in at the check in counter even after the schedule timing the consideration shown by the 1^st opposite party towards the 2^nd complainant is a matter of courtesy.    In fact if the passenger does not check in within the check in time his ticket would stand cancelled. 

3” Customer check in begins 2 hours prior to the flight, for seat assignment and will close 40 minutes prior to the scheduled departure.  Any Customer reporting after the stipulated counter closing time till be treated as a “no-show” case an will not be entitled for any refund and their faire paid will stand forfeited.”  

Further the learned counsel for the 1^st opposite party state that as measure of good will, the airlines try to accommodate such passenger wherever possible.  So the 1^st opposite party had done a similar deed to the 2^nd complainant in excise of goodwill, taking into consideration the fact that the 2^nd complainant was an unaccompanied minor.   So the 1^st opposite party with the view to help the 1^st complainant had put the 2^nd complainant on a flight to Mumbai at its own risk and responsibility and thereby the 1^st opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.      Inspite of service of notice the opposite party-2 is called absent and set exparte.

4.     In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 marked.  Proof affidavit of 1^st opposite party filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 marked on the side of the  1^st opposite party.

5.   The points for the consideration is:

Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.25,000/- as prayed for?

6. ON POINT :

          Heard both sides.  Perused the records.  The learned counsel for the complainant contended that admittedly the 1^st complainant booked ticket through the 2^nd opposite party who is an agent of the 1^st opposite party at Chennai and on behalf of 2^nd  complainant is a minor Varun Thakkar  for the journey dated 20.10.2006 to depart at 22.30 hours from Pune to Chennai.  The learned counsel for the complainants further contended that the ticket booked at Chennai.  Hence the cause of action is arose at Chennai and this forum having territorial jurisdiction.  The learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that admittedly the 1^st complainant booked ticket from 2^nd opposite party for the travel in 1^st opposite party flight for the minor 2^nd complainant from Pune to Chennai and this forum having no jurisdiction and cause of action.  But it is not denied that the complainant booked ticket at Chennai.  Wherein cause of action arise.  Hence this forum having territorial jurisdiction.  

7.     Further the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant made enquiries with the 1^st opposite party and was assured that the 1^st opposite party was equipped to handle unaccompanied  minor and that good care would be taken  of the 2^nd complainant  on his travel from Pune to Chennai.   But the complainant has not produced any record to show the 1^st opposite party Airport Authority shall take care of the minor passenger before check in counter.    Further the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the 2^nd complainant escorted to the Pune Airport by One Mr. Vikram Kalloo a friend of 1^st complainant but no record.  Further the contention is that the 2^nd  complainant was brought to the Pune airport much prior to the reporting time and the ticket printout was handed over to the 2^nd complainant airport at 8.00 p.m.    The 1^st complainant has not produced to prove that also.    Further the learned counsel for the complainant contended that Mr. Vikram Kallo entrusted the 2^nd complainant to the Airport staff of the 1^st opposite party at about 8.00 p.m. on 20.10.2006 after filing in the Unaccompanied Minor Declaration form which is also stated by the 2^nd complainant.    After some time Mr.Vikram Kalloo was informed by the staff of the 1^st opposite party that the 2^nd complainant had been taken into  the security area and there was no need for him to wait anymore at the airport.   But the complainant has not adduced any evidence to prove who are the staff taken care of the 2^nd complainant minor.  

8.     Further the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the 2^nd complainant along with other two minor children was made  to sit behind the check-in counter of the 1^st opposite party at the Pune Airport and when the staff of the 1^st opposite party began to issue boarding passes, they were approached by the 2^nd complainant for issue of the boarding pass.  However the check in counter staff of the 1^st opposite party informed the 2^nd complainant that they would be checked in later.     Further the complainant contended that at about 10.30. p.m  with utter shock the 1^st complainant received  a call from the 2^nd complainant stating that he had not been checked in into the flight and as a result will not be reaching Chennai on the said flight.   Immediately the 1^st complainant contacted the Airport Manager of the 1^st opposite party to find out why the 2^nd complainant was not put on the flight to Chennai for that the 1^st opposite party who informed that the 2^nd complainant was not checked in due to overlooked by mistake amounts to deficiency of service.  But the complainant has not adduced and concrete evidence to prove the process in which a passenger shall undergo to till  broad the flight.   In this case the 2^nd complainant was alleged to be not taken care  due to the mistake of the 1^st opposite party staff.  But till enter into the security area the minor kept accompanied with a guardian or next friend.  Immediately entering into the airport all the passengers shall be permitted to avail the boarding pass after verification of the ticket.  Thereafter the passengers shall go to check in counter.   Wherein the luggages will be checked and tagged and the passengers will be directed to go into the security check up.   Till security check up before check in counter guardian will be permitted to the minor child.   The allegation that the 1^st opposite party staff assured to take care of the minor immediately entering into the Airport before issuance of boarding pass and check in counter leading to security check up is an imaginary and not correct.     Equally the complainant has not proved that whether the child is entrusted with whom.

9.     Further the contention of the complainant is that after missing of flight from Pune to Chennai the opposite parties kept the minor in storeroom till boarding the flight from Pune to Mumbai; Mumbai to Chennai is totally imaginary without any basic evidence.   Further the learned counsel for the complainant contended that due to missing of flight and arranging alternative flight causing delay in boarding the flight reaching destination caused great mental agony.  The complainant claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards such hardship and mental agony.  But the complainant has not proved the alleged mental agony.   Therefore there is negligence on the part of the opposite parties has not been proved.

10.    The learned counsel for the 1^st  opposite party contended that the allegation that one Mr.Vikram Kalloo, escorted the 2^nd complainant  had handed over him to the airport staff of the 1^st opposite party on 8.00 p.m on 20.10.2006 is utter false and denied since neither the complainant nor Mr. Vikram Kallo has not been stated anything about the details of the staff.   Equally none of the staff entrusted  to give any assurance to such minor passenger.    Further the learned counsel for the 1^st opposite party contended that none of the minor children who had checked in  at the  checking counter had been made to wait behind the checking counter.   The minor children who were checked in were taken care of by the airport staff and were escorted to the security area under the guidance of the airlines official, who took care of the children till they were put to board into the aircraft.   The averment that the check in counter staff had asked the 2^nd complainant to wait and informed that he would be checked in later is utterly false.   Ordinarily the airline staff does not entertain or accept minor children until the escort checks them in at the check in counter and hands the child over to the airline staff.   Once the children are accepted after check-in they are taken through the security area under the custody of airline staff.  The same was followed in the case also.  

Unaccompanied Minors: Go Air does not carry unaccompanied minors under 5 years.  Escort and /or special facilities are not available.  Children under the age of 5 must be accompanied on the same reservation by a passenger over the age of 16 years.   Go Air will carry minors, aged 5-16, upon completion of signed indemnity form at the point of check in at each departure airport, by a parent or guardian of the minor.   Passengers aged 5-16 years travelling unaccompanied must present the required valid photo ID prior to check-in.   Parents or guardians must remain at the airport until the flight has departed.”

11.    Further the learned counsel for the 1^st opposite party contended that the 1^st  complainant  had neither informed the 1^st opposite party about the travel of the unaccompanied minor nor signed an indemnity bound as accorded by the procedure of the Airline company.    Further the learned counsel for the 1^st opposite party contended that the 2^nd complainant had not even been checked at the check in counter there was no necessity to provide a safe place for the 2^nd complainant to wait.  Since the 2^nd complainant had not checked in at the check in counter even after the schedule timing the consideration shown by the 1^st opposite party towards the 2^nd complainant is a matter of courtesy.    In fact if the passenger does not check in within the check in time his ticket would stand cancelled. 

3” Customer check in begins 2 hours prior to the flight, for seat assignment and will close 40 minutes prior to the scheduled departure.  Any Customer reporting after the stipulated counter closing time till be treated as a “no-show” case an will not be entitled for any refund and their faire paid will stand forfeited.”  

12.    Further the learned counsel for the 1^st opposite party contended that as measure of good will, the airlines try to accommodate such passenger wherever possible.  So the 1^st opposite party had done a similar deed to the 2^nd complainant in excise of goodwill, taking into consideration the fact that the 2^nd complainant was an unaccompanied minor.   So the 1^st opposite party with the view to help the 1^st complainant had put the 2^nd complainant on a flight to Mumbai at its own risk and responsibility.  

The opposite party cited a decision reported in

Kusum Sharma and others

..Vs..

Batra Hospital and Medical Research Center and others

(2010 3 SCC 480)

Held that

          Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by omission to do something which a reasonable man guide by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would to, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.   The definition of negligence as given in Law of Torts, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal (edited by Justice G.P. Singh), referred to hereinabove, holds good.  Negligence becomes actionable on account of injury resulting from the act or omission amounting to negligence attributable to the person sued.   The essential components of negligence are three, duty, “breach, and resulting damage.”

There is no negligence on the part of the opposite parties.   Considering  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case  this  forum is  of the considered view that the complainant are not entitled for any relief  as prayed for in the complaint and the point is answered accordingly. 

             In the result the complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

           Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  16^th   day  of  November 2017.

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1- 20.10.2008         -  Copy of the Air ticket issued by the opposite party.

Ex.A2- 21.10.2008         -  Copy of email from the 1^st complainant.

Ex.A3- 21.10.2006         -  Copy of email from the 1^st complainant.

Ex.A4- 23.10.2006         -  Copy of email from the Chief Commercial officer of the

                               opposite party.

Ex.A5- 23.10.2006         -  Copy of reply email from the 1^st complainant.

Ex.A6- 23.10.2006         -  Copy of email from the 1^st complainant.

Ex.A7- 24.10.2006 -          Copy of email from the Managing Director of the

                                            opp. party.

Ex.A8- 20.11.2006         -  Copy of legal notice.

Opposite parties’ side document: -   

Ex.B1-  2005 to 2007   Copy of Citizen Charter as available in st opposite party.

Ex.B3- 26.10.2006  to  5.12.2006    -   Copy of communication between the 1^st opp. party and

                                                              Friend of the 1^st complainant.

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.