DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

[Complaint Case No:384 of 2011]

1.                 Ram Chander s/o late Sh. Umrao Singh resident of H.No.2040, Sector 70, Mohali.

2.                 Preeti Bala d/o Sh. Ram Chander resident of H.No.2040, Sector 70, Mohali.

                                                                   ---Complainants.

Versus

1.                 M/s Haryana Travels, SCO No.133-135, 1^st Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh through its owner Mr. G.S. Saini

2.                 Jet Airways (India) Ltd., S.M. Center, Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400059, Maharashtra (India), through its authorised signatory

3.                 Jet Airways (India) Ltd., Civil Airport, Chandigarh 160001 through its authorised officer.

---Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. Ashish Kumar Gupta, Adv. for the complainants

                        Sh. B.L. Sharma, Adv. for OP No.1

                        Sh. Sunil K. Dixit, Adv. for OPs No.2 & 3.

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           Sh. Ram Chander and Ms. Preeta Bala have filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) praying for the following relief :-

“i)      on account of the extra expenditure under extra ordinary emergent circumstances, because of the OPs No.2 and 3, and on conveyance increased on 22.05.2011 and 23.05.2011, in Delhi.

ii)                On account of damages suffered by the complainant unable to attend the most important and urgent National Training/Conference on DOTS Plus meant for medical officers, on 23.05.2011 commencing from 9 am onwards.

iii)              For deficiency in their service and for mal treatment towards the complainant and on accounts mentioned above in the complaint.

iv)              And Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental torture, harassment, humiliation and mental agony to the complainant

v)                 Rs.15,000/- as legal/litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.” 

2.                           In brief, the case of the complainants is that Ms. Preeti Bala, who is a microbiologist, was nominated for RNTCP National /DOTS Plus Training at Trivandrum. The said training was scheduled from 23.5.2011 to 27.5.2011. In order to undergo the said training, complainant No.1 purchased one air ticket for complainant No.2 for her journey from Delhi to Thiruvananthapuram on 22.5.2011 by paying Rs.10,200/-. The said ticket was purchased through opposite party No.1, which is the authorised agent of opposite parties No.2 & 3.  It was a confirmed ticket.  As per the schedule, the flight No.(9W) 336 was to take off from Delhi at 8:00 a.m on 22.5.2011 and it was to reach Thiruvananthapuram at 12:50 p.m on the same day.  In order to undertake the journey through this flight, according to the complainant, she reached the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi before 6:00 a.m. on 22.5.2011. She approached the officials of Jet Airways at the designated place and requested for issuance of boarding pass. However, to her surprise, the official present there refused to issue the boarding pass on the pretext that there is no seat in the aircraft.   The complainant tried to persuade the staff of Opposite parties No.2 & 3 to allow her to undertake the journey as she was to attend the training programme mentioned above.  However, despite the best efforts of complainant No.2, and her father, she was not permitted to undertake the journey on that date and no boarding pass was issued to her.  She was rather issued the boarding pass for the next day and ultimately she undertook the journey on the next day.

                   According to the complainants, as the boarding pass was denied to complainant No.2, she had to stay at the house of their relatives which is about 40-45 kms. away from the airport, and an amount of Rs.1,400/- was spent  for travelling to the said place and back to the airport on the next day.  Complainant No.1 also had to hire another taxi for reaching Mohali for which he spent Rs.2,700/-.  In addition, according to the complainants, they had to suffer a lot of mental and physical harassment because of denial of the boarding pass to complainant No.2 on 22.5.2011.

                   According to the complainants, refusal to issue the boarding pass amounts to deficiency in service.  In such circumstances the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.                           Opposite party No.1 in its written reply admitted that the ticket was purchased through it. According to opposite party No.1, it is a Government approved travel agency and booking agent of Opposite parties No.2 & 3.  However, according to it, the boarding pass was denied by opposite parties No.2 & 3 and it has no concern with the same.  In these circumstances, it has been prayed that there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal.

4.                           In the written statement filed by opposite parties No.2 & 3 it has been admitted that the complainant purchased an air ticket for Rs.10,200/- and that the same was ‘confirmed’ ticket.  According to the opposite parties, complainant No.2 was denied the boarding pass as she reached late and the other passenger, who was in the waiting list, was given the boarding pass.  (It is pertinent to mention here that in the written statement the time of arrival of complainant No.2 at the airport has not been mentioned). It has further been pleaded that the complainant was accommodated in the next flight on 23.5.2011 without any difference in fare, though the fare of the said flight was much higher than the previous one.  In these circumstances, according to the opposite parties, there is no deficiency in service on their part.  It has further been pleaded that they are not liable to reimburse for the consequential expenses incurred by the complainant on her journey from the airport to the house of her relative and back.  Furthermore, according to the opposite parties, as per the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR), Airlines overbook their scheduled flights to a limited extent in order to reduce the possibility of flights departing with the unoccupied or empty seats because of ‘No Shows’. This procedure, according to the opposite parties, is being followed by all the Airlines across the world. So, according to the opposite parties, the mere fact that the boarding pass was not issued, despite complainant No.2 having the confirmed ticket, is not a deficiency in service and the complaint deserves dismissal.

5.                           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record.

6.                           Annexure C-1 is the copy of the ticket.  A bare perusal of this ticket shows that it was a ‘confirmed’ ticket.  It is also evident from Annexure C-1 that the flight was to take off at 8:00 a.m from the Indira Gandhi International Airport, Delhi and it was to reach Thiruvananthapuram at 12:50 p.m. It has been averred by the complainants that they reached the airport before 6:00 a.m. which is supported by their duly sworn in affidavits.  On the other hand, the case of the opposite parties is that the complainant No.2 reached the airport late and, by that time, the passenger who were having the tickets and were in waiting list, were given the status of confirmed ticket and given boarding pass.  It is pertinent to mention here that in the reply, neither the time of arrival of the complainant No.2 at the airport has been mentioned nor it has been mentioned as to at what time and to whom the status of confirmed ticket was given in place of complainant No.2.  The reply filed by the opposite parties is also not supported by any affidavit.  In these circumstances, the version given by the complainants has to be accepted.

7.                           From the averments made in the complaint, which is supported by the duly sworn affidavits of the complainants, it is evident that the complainants had reached the airport before 6:00 a.m on 22.5.2011 whereas the scheduled departure time of the flight was 8:00 a.m.  In these circumstances, the complainants were well in time. So, the denial of boarding pass to complainant No.2, despite the fact that she was having a confirmed ticket, certainly amounts to deficiency in service, on the part of opposite parties No.2 & 3.

8.                           As the complainant No.2 was permitted to undertake the journey on the next flight on the next day, on the same amount, so, the complainant is not entitled for refund of the fare paid by her.  However, because of denial of the boarding pass, by Opposite parties No.2 & 3, the complainants have suffered mental and physical agony. 

9.                           In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite parties No.2 & 3 are directed to -

i)                   pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainants as compensation for mental and physical harassment suffered by them; and

ii)                pay Rs.7,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainants.

10.                       This order be complied with by the opposite parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr. No.(i) shall carry interest @18% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.  The complaint qua opposite party No.1 is dismissed with no order as to costs.

11.                       Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

26.07.2012.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

hg