STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Air China Limited, Ground Floor, E-9, Connaught House, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110001, through its Manager.

……Appellant/Opposite Party No.2

V e r s u s

1.Smt. Sarita Bajaj wife of Sh. Rakesh Bajaj, resident of #3046, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh.

2.Archit Bajaj (minor) aged about 10 years, son of Sh. Rakesh Bajaj, through his mother and natural guardian Smt. Sarita Bajaj wife of Sh. Rakesh Bajaj, resident of #3046, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh.

………Respondents No.1 and 2/Complainants

3.Grand Travel Planners (P) Ltd., Chamber No.14-16, 1^stService dispensed with, vide order dated 06.02.2014.).

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Argued by: 

                Sh. Rakesh Bajaj, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2/complainants.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.     Smt. Sarita Bajaj wife of Sh. Rakesh Bajaj, resident

2.  

………Appellants/Complainants

Versus

1.     Grand Travel Planners (P) Ltd., Chamber No.14-16,Service.

 .... Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1

2.     Air China, Ground Floor, E-9, Connaught House,

Argued by: 

                Sh. Arun Gosain, Advocate for respondent No.2/Opposite Party No. 2.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BEFORE:  

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

             First Appeal Nos. 17 of 2014, titled as Air China Limited Vs. Smt. Sarita Bajaj and Ors.,  and 555 of 2013, titled as  Smt. Sarita Bajaj and Anr.,  Vs. Grand Travel Planners (P) Ltd. and Anr.,

“In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party No.2 is found deficient in giving proper service to the complainants. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainants deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party No.2, and the same is allowed, qua it and is dismissed qua Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Party No.2 is directed to:-

[a]     To pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and harassment to the Complainants; 

[b]     To pay Rs.7,000/- as cost of litigation;

The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party No.2; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] of para 14 above, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.7,000/-, from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid.”

2.           

3.           

4.           

5.           

6.           

7.           

8.           

9.           

10.         First Appeal No.17 of 2014, titled as Air China Limited Vs. Smt. Sarita Bajaj and Ors.,  was filed, by the appellant/Opposite Party No.2, for setting aside the impugned order, being illegal. Whereas, on the other hand, was filed by the appellants/complainants, for enhancement of compensation, in terms of the prayer, made in the complaint.

11.         

12.        , submitted that the District Forum had no territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.2, does not appear to be correct. There is, no dispute, with regard to the factum that complainant no.1, purchased two returned air tickets, from Opposite Party No.1, on 25.05.2012, for herself and her minor son, namely Archit Bajaj, from New Delhi to San Francisco and back, by paying a sum of Rs.1.21 lacs, vide bill No.I1200217, Annexure C-1. It was Opposite Party No.1, which issued two confirmed tickets, bearing Nos.999-9552577909 and 999-9552577910 (Route:DEL/PEK/SFO/ PEK/DEL), for 31.05.2012. Since, the tickets were purchased by the complainants, from Opposite Party No.1, based at Chandigarh, and payment of the air fare for purchasing the said tickets, was also made to it (Opposite Party No.1), at Chandigarh, a part of cause of action, arose to the complainants, within the territorial Jurisdiction of the District Forum, at Chandigarh. Under these circumstances, the District Forum, at Chandigarh, had territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.2, thus, being devoid of any substance, is rejected.13.         that the complaint was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as the air tickets were obtained from “Check My Trip”. Here too, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.2, does not appear to be correct. As stated above, two confirmed air tickets of Opposite Party No.2 Airlines, referred to above, were issued by Opposite Party No.1, located at Chandigarh, on receipt of payment of Rs.1,21,000/-. The complainants travelled in the Airlines, of Opposite Party No.2. According to the complainants, the delay in flight was attributable to Opposite Party No.2. Under these circumstances, no relief was sought by the complainants, against “Check My Trip”. The relief was only sought by the complainants, against Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 i.e. the Agent, from which the said tickets were purchased, against payment, and the Airlines, through which they undertook the said journey. In these circumstances, in our considered opinion, the complaint was not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, thus, being devoid of merit is rejected.

14.         1755 hours, with a transit change over at Beijing-China, there was a delay, in the connecting flight. The question arises, as to whether, the flight took off from San Franscio on 10.07.2012 at 1450 hours, duration whereof, was 12.05 hours, reached Beijing (China), at1755 hours, or not. The complainants, in their complaint, in clear-cut terms, averred that the flight from San Francisco took off, as per the scheduled time, and reached Beijing (China), on time. These averments were duly corroborated by Sarita Bajaj, complainant no.1, through her affidavit, submitted by way of evidence. There was a delay of 22/24 hours, in reaching the flight at New Delhi. No doubt, Opposite Party No.2, submitted Annexure R-2/1, a document, to show that, on account of bad weather conditions, there was delay in reaching the flight at New Delhi. However, Annexure R-2/1 document, submitted by Opposite Party No.2, is not reliable. In case, on account of bad weather conditions, there was delay in the flight, then weather report could be produced by Opposite Party No.2, on the record, to prove its stand. The person concerned, who was at the helms of affairs, and had the first hand knowledge, with regard to the reasons, as to why, there was delay in the flight, could also file his affidavit, but he did not do so. Even the report of the Metrological Department, to prove the version of Opposite Party No.2, that, on account of bad weather conditions, there was delay, in the flight, was not produced. Mr. Jatin Choudhary, Sales Officer, Punjab, Air China Limited, submitted his affidavit. He could not be said to be a person, having the first hand knowledge, with regard to the reasons, leading to delay, in reaching the flight at New Delhi. He could only be said to be a person, who might have derived the said information, from some other person(s). His affidavit, therefore, could not be said to be sufficient, to prove the reasons, on account whereof, there was a delay of 22/24 hours, in the arrival of flight, at New Delhi. Annexure R2/2, is another document, which was placed, on record, by Opposite Party No.2. This document also, does not, in any away, prove the stand of Opposite Party No.2, that, on account of bad weather conditions/thunder storm, there was delay, in the flight, in question. The District Forum, was, thus, right, in coming to the conclusion, that Opposite Party No.2, could not produce cogent, convincing and trustworthy independent evidence, to prove that it was on account of bad weather conditions/thunder-storm that there was delay of about 22/24 hours, in reaching the flight, at New Delhi. There was, therefore, definitely deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.2. The District Forum was also right, in holding so.

15.        

16.        The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the compensation, awarded by the District Forum, could be said to be inadequate, and the same needs to be enhanced.As stated above, there was a delay of 22/24 hours, in reaching the flight, in question, at New Delhi. The complainants, thus, underwent a tremendous mental agony and physical harassment. The husband of complainant no.1, and father of complainant no.2, as per the scheduled time of the flight,Charan Singh, Appeallant Vs. Healing Touch Hospital and others, Respondents, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 3138=III (2000) CPJ 1 (SC).the principle of law, laid down, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, was to the effect, that the compensation should be commensurate with loss and injury, suffered by the complainants. In the instant case, keeping in view the tremendous mental agony and physical harassment, caused to complainant no.1 and her minor child, on account of 22/24 hours delay, in reaching the flight, as also the trauma, underwent by the husband of complainant no.1, the compensation awarded by the District Forum, to the tune of Rs.15,000/-, appears to be somewhat, on the lower side. The compensation, thus, needs to be enhanced. Compensation, in the sum of Rs.20,000/-, if granted, instead of Rs.15,000/-, 

17.        

18.        

                               The Appellant/Opposite Party No.2, in

                              Interest @18% P.A., in default of compliance of its order, within 45 days, awarded by the District Forum, is reduced to 9% P.A., on the amount of compensation of Rs.20,000/-, enhanced by this Commission, instead of, on Rs.15,000/-, as awarded by the District Forum

                            The other reliefs granted and directions given, by the District Forum, shall remain intact.

19.              Certified copy of this order be placed in

20.        

21.        

Pronounced.

March 3, 2014

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

Rg

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

1.     Smt. Sarita Bajaj wife of Sh. Rakesh Bajaj, resident

2.  

………Appellants/Complainants

Versus

1.     Grand Travel Planners (P) Ltd., Chamber No.14-16,Service.

 .... Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1

2.     Air China, Ground Floor, E-9, Connaught House,

Argued by: 

                Sh. Arun Gosain, Advocate for respondent No.2/Opposite Party No. 2.

BEFORE:  

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

             Vide our separate detailed order of the even date, recorded in connectedFirst Appeal No.17 of 2014, titled as Air China Limited Vs. Smt. Sarita Bajaj and Ors., this appeal has been partly accepted, with no order as to costs, with the modification.

2.           First Appeal No.17 of 2014, titled as Air China Limited Vs. Smt. Sarita Bajaj and Ors., be placed on this file also.

3.           

4.           

 Sd/-