JUDGMENT 13.10.2010 Justice Pritam Pal, President 1. This appeal by complainant for enhancement of compensation is directed against the order dated 11.12.2008 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh whereby his complaint bearing No.595 of 2008 was allowed in the following terms ; “The OPs are directed to pay Rs.3,500/- to the complainant as taxi charges and also refund appropriate amount of fare for the journey from Chandigarh to Delhi which was not performed by the complainant in their aeroplane alongwith Rs.500/- as litigation costs within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order failing which the OPs would be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of Rs.3,500/- w.e.f the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 28.5.2008 till realization.” 2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their status before the District Forum. 3. In nutshell, the facts as set out in the complaint are that the Complainant had planned his holidays along with his family members and purchased a ticket bearing No. 2652854833 from OP No.2 for traveling between Chandigarh to New Delhi on 8.12.2007, from Delhi to Goa on 10.12.2007, Goa to Bombay for 13.12.2007 and from Bombay to Chandigarh on 18.12.2007. It was alleged that on 8.12.2007, the scheduled flight was cancelled without any intimation. Even the OP No.1 refused to make any alternative arrangement, due to which Complainant had to take a Taxi for Delhi. On 10.12.2007 the Complainant had boarded a plane from Delhi to Goa and booked his luggage along with one wheel chair of his 100% handicapped son. However on reaching Goa, he found that the wheel chair of his handicapped son was not loaded in the aircraft by the ground staff. Accordingly, a complaint was lodged (Annexure-A) with the OP No.1 at Goa Airport, upon which it was told that the wheel chair would be delivered next day. In the absence of wheel chair, the plan to enjoy holidays at Goa, along with his handicapped son, was totally spoiled. Hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum. 4. The case of OP NO.1 before the District Forum was that the name of Complainant and his other family members was in the list for travel from Chandigarh to Delhi on 9th December, 2007; but the flight was cancelled due to inclement weather. The airline had assisted several passengers in arranging Taxis for them but the Complainant had depended upon his Travel Agent M/s Sheetal Travels. It was pleaded that the complainant had not supplied the baggage tags of his checked-in baggage on flight from New Delhi to Goa to ascertain whether his son’s wheel chair was booked along with other baggage. However, it was asserted that the wheel chair was not booked with the Complainant’s checked in baggage. He took his son in his own wheel chair to the plane for boarding and having boarded the aircraft, the wheel chair was left behind to be put in the luggage hold of the aircraft as unchecked in baggage as it could not be carried in the plane. In this process, the wheel chair could not be loaded without destination tag as taking the wheel chair back to check-in area for carriage as checked in baggage would have delayed the aircraft considerably. At Mumbai, the wheel chair was inadvertently off loaded, since it was not having a destination tag. Thus, the Complainant had also to share the responsibility for not booking the wheel chair along with his checked-in baggage. It was further pleaded that at Goa, as per assurance given, an alternative wheel chair was provided which was accepted by the Complainant. However, OP NO.2-Sheetal Travels in its reply pleaded that there was no lapse or deficiency in service on their part as in the entire complaint there was not even a single allegation against it. In the entire episode, their role was limited to that of a Seller of package of OP No.1, taken by the Complainant, and nothing beyond it. A prayer was made for the dismissal of the complaint. 5. The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and hearing the counsel for parties allowed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. Still dissatisfied, complainant has come up in this appeal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. The only noticeable point of arguments raised on behalf of the complainant is that the compensation awarded by the learned District Forum is inadequate and meager in the face of harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant . It was argued that after the security check all the big/bulky articles are handed over at the counter of the airlines and the destination tags which are computerized are put up by the officials of the airlines and not by the passengers. The complainant on reaching Delhi Airport after security check handed over the wheel chair alongwith other baggage to the officials of airline at the counter and obtained boarding pass. The wheel chair alongwith other baggage was uploaded in the aircraft at Delhi Airport but due to negligence of the ground staff at Bombay airport the wheel chair was offloaded due to which son of the complainant who was 100% handicapped could not move for sight scene etc. without the availability of their own wheel chair which was extremely specially built and the very purpose of tour was defeated as the wheel chair provided at Goa was a very simple one meant for the aged passengers and was not fit for the son of complainant. However, learned counsel for OPs repelled the aforesaid arguments. 7. There is no denying the fact that on the date of booking due to inclement weather the flight was cancelled and passengers were sent to Delhi Airport by taxies. Complainant and his family members hired their own taxi for reaching Delhi Airport. It is also admitted that the wheel chair was off loaded at Mumbai instead of taking it to Goa and was provided to the complainant in his hotel after one night. The complainant has sought compensation as his son remained without a wheel chair for one night. As observed by the learned District Forum the complainant could not produce the baggage tags or the flight tickets to prove if any baggage tag was attached to the wheel chair and it had indeed been booked alongwith other checked-in-baggage but on the other hand a perusal of Annexures R-2 & R-3 revealed that the wheel chair had not been booked alongwith the checked-in-baggage, the handicapped boy having been driven to the aircraft in his own wheel chair. However, a wheel chair was provided by the airline authorities at Goa from the aeroplane to taxi stand from where he was taken in the taxi to hotel in the evening and the family of complainant settled down there for the night and next morning at 6.30 A.M. the wheel chair was handed over to them. Thus, in these facts and circumstances of the case we do not find any justification in enhancing the compensation awarded by the learned District Forum. 8. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for Sheetal Travels- OP NO.2 argued that the District Forum should have held liable for payment only the Indian Airlines -principle of Sheetal travels and not its agent. In fact, this appeal is on behalf of the complainant and not by the agent, therefore, such a plea is not maintainable at this stage. 9. Before parting with this order, it is observed that since we have decided this appeal on merits, so application for condonation of 109 days delay which is even not supported by any affidavit is not required to be decided on merits. 10. In the result, this appeal is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | , | | 
