THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.
C.C.376/2013
Dated this the 9th day of December, 2019
(Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB. : President)
Sri. Joseph Mathew, M.A., L.L.B. : Member
Smt. Priya S., BBL, LLB, MBA : Member
ORDER
Present: Hon’ble Sri. Joseph Mathew, Member:
This petition is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The petitioner is a Major in the Armed Force of India. His case is that, he had booked a ticket from the Indian Airlines Website on 24/04/2012 for the journey from Delhi to Kozhikode on 03/06/2012 in the Flight No-A1- 657. The ticket No. was 098-21034/6822 and it was confirmed and the scheduled departure of the flight was at 07.00hrs. He had reached at the Delhi airport to board the flight before 45 minutes of take-off time. He joined the queue for checking –up and on reaching the counter he was informed by the counter staff that the flight was full and there is no more vacancy in the flight. When he informed to the staff that his ticket was confirmed, the counter staff directed to approach the Counter Manager for assistance. At the time he approached the counter manager Mr.Bhoop Singh a large number of people were there with the similar grievances. When he presented his case, instead of assisting him the counter manager without enquiring anything with the staff falsely alleged in harsh and offensive manner that he was late to report at the counter.
It is stated by the petitioner that, when he spoke against the foul play and injustice caused to him by the opposite parties then they offered a seat on the next flight scheduled the next day but that was not acceptable to him. Then he was offered a seat in the flight to Bangalore which was scheduled to take-off at 09.00hrs on the same day. Since he was proceeding on a short leave reluctantly he agreed to their offer after paying Rs.1,500/- extra. But to his utter shock, when he approached the counter for obtaining the boarding pass to Bangalore he was denied boarding in that flight also. The extra amount paid was refunded in cash. Many other passengers who are reported well in time were also refused boarding the flight causing a chaotic scene at the airport.
Since there was no other way, he booked a ticket in a private airline to Coimbatore at a hefty cost of Rs.16,585/- and he had to arrange a private transport to his home town spending another Rs.3,000/-. Due to the said act of the opposite parties he lost one full day also out of his limited 7 days leave. He reached the airport gate at 06.05 hrs and joined the queue before 06.10 hrs. But there was no announcement by any staff of the opposite parties to check for anybody waiting at the queue which is violation of the rules in vogue.
The petitioner also stated that in the air ticket issued it is clearly mentioned by the opposite parties that he may be offered a seat in any flight to Coimbatore or Bangalore which the opposite parties failed to do. It is also endorsed in the ticket that full refund be awarded as the airlines was not able to provide this alternative arrangements. If he was late for reporting then the opposite parties would not have tried to appease him and this itself proves that it was a clear case of overbooking. Though he had made several enquiries over phone and approached the opposite party’s office many times demanding refund of the basic cost of the ticket and the ticket fare of the private airlines but in vain. He being an employee of Government of India he is authorized to travel in Air India to claim the cost of the ticket but due to the denial of travel in that flight he was not in a position to claim the refund authorised to him. It is also stated that if boarding is denied to the passenger against their will the airlines have to pay compensation to the customer in addition to refund of ticket charge. But opposite parties failed to provide any compensation or even to refund the ticket charge of Rs.7,395/-. The said act of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and also deficiency in service on their part and this caused much mental agony, loss of time, heavy financial loss and loss of one full day of his limited 7 days leave also. So the opposite parties are liable to compensate his losses. Hence this petition is filed to direct the opposite parties to refund the ticket charge of Rs.7,395/- along with Rs.60,000/- as compensation for his sufferings and also the cost of the proceedings.
The opposite parties filed version denying all the allegations of the petitioner as false and frivolous. It is contended that this petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. It is admitted that the petitioner had booked a ticket to travel by flight No-A1-657 on 03/06/2012 which was scheduled to departure at 7.00am from Delhi as stated by the petitioner. The ticket was issued in ‘S’ Class for Rs.7,935/-. The petitioner checked-in at 1.47am on seat No. 20C. But due to his failure to report for boarding on time he could not travel in that flight. As per procedure the counter manager made announcement calling for passengers holding OK ticket before closing the counter. The last passenger for the said flight was accepted at 6.14 am. In this case check-in was closed at 6.15am ie. 45 minutes prior to departure of the flight but the petitioner reported to the counter manager only at 6.25am, which is 10 minute after the closure of the check-in counter which is evident from the endorsement made by the counter manager on the ticket ‘Reported 06.25 hrs.’. Since the petitioner is failed to report before closing the counter he was treated as a “no show”. The flight left with 7 empty seats and this shows that the reason for not travelling in that flight by the petitioner was due to the delay on his part to report on time. Even though the petitioner was reported at 6.25 am, as a sign of goodwill they offered re-validation of his ticket and an alternate ticket to Bangalore but they could not accommodate the petitioner on the flight to Bangalore as the same was fully booked and no cancellation were made. The statement of the petitioner that on reaching the counter he was informed by the counter staff that the flight was full and there was no vacancy in that flight is not true or correct. He was referred to the counter manager only because he had reported after the counter was closed. The allegation that the counter manager instead of assisting him behaved in a harsh and offensive manner was denied as false. They have offered alternate flight to Cochin and Bangalore only as a gesture of goodwill and they were not duty bound to do the same.
The allegation that due to the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties he was constrained to obtain a ticket in a private airline at a hefty cost of Rs.16,585/- and had spend Rs.3,000/- for hiring a private transport to his home town was denied as not known to them and stated that the petitioner is making this allegation only with the intent to extract a fabulous sum from them. It is stated that the petitioner could have avoided all these alleged expenses if he had reported to the counter on time for the flight No-A1-657. The allegation that the endorsement in the ticket ie. 6.25 is the time of approaching the counter manager and not the time of reaching the counter is not true or correct hence denied. The ticket amount was offered to the petitioner but he refused to accept the same. The petitioner can get refund of the amount spend for the ticket at any time. The fact that they offered to try and help the petitioner out of his misery doesn’t cast any responsibility or deficiency on them. The statement that by denying boarding in the said flight and being forced to take ticket in a private airline he was not in a position to claim the refund authorised to him is also denied as not true. The flight was took-off with 7 empty seats and so even if the petitioner had reported at 6.15hrs he would have been able to travel in that flight. There was no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on their part as alleged and no mental pain or any other loss has been occurred to the petitioner due to any of their act and hence they are in no way liable to compensate the petitioner as alleged. Any alleged loss was suffered by the petitioner, it was due to the negligence and failure on the part of the petitioner in reporting the counter on time for which they cannot be held liable. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition with their cost.
The matters for determination are:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Reliefs and costs if any?
Evidence consists of the affidavits filed by the petitioner and the opposite parties, Ext. A1 and A2, B1 and deposition of PW1. Ext. A1 is the copy of E-Ticket Itinerary Receipt, Ext. A2 is the copy of letter issued by the petitioner to the opposite parties dated 20/08/2012 and Ext. B1 is the copy of General Conditions of Carriage For Passengers and Baggage.
Point No. 1: The specific allegation of the petitioner is that due to overbooking the opposite parties had denied his travel in flight No-A1-657 scheduled to departure at 07.00hrs from Delhi to Kozhikode on 03/06/2012. According to the petitioner he is having a confirmed ticket for traveling in that flight. It is stated that he had reached the airline counter on 06.05hrs. and the counter staff informed that the flight was full and there was no more vacancy in that flight. Though he approached the counter manager seeking help, he also rejected his request stating he was late. Due to the denial of his journey in that flight he was constrained to obtain a ticket in a private airline and all these caused much inconvenience and other difficulties and also huge financial loss to him. So the opposite parties are liable to make good his losses.
The opposite parties also admitted that the petitioner was holding a confirmed ticket in that flight. According to them the petitioner had checked-in at 1.47am on seat No20C. He had ample time to report at the counter and to collect the boarding pass but due to his failure to report on boarding on time his name has been removed from the passengers list. The petitioner reported to the counter manager only at 6.25am which is evident from the endorsement made by the counter manager on Ext. A1 ticket also. The petitioner was examined as PW1. In cross, the petitioner denied the said contention of the opposite parties and stated that to prove the said endorsement as not correct he himself had endorsed and signed in Ext. A1 ticket that he had reported at counter before 06.15 hrs. As stated in the petition the petitioner had approached the counter manager for assistance after reaching the counter and as directed by the counter staff. The petitioner also had stated that there are many other passengers near the counter manager with the same grievances and so he had waited patiently for his turn. So it may be true that the petitioner had met the counter manager at 6.25hrs as endorsed in Ext.A1 but it cannot be considered as the time he had reached the counter on 6.25hrs since the petitioner had spend some time for meeting the counter manger. So we are of the view that the averment of the petitioner regarding the endorsement in Ext. A1 is more reliable.
Moreover the petitioner is a Major in the Indian Army. He himself had stated that he is a frequent traveller in flights. All these shows that he is well acquainted with the procedures of flight journey. So it is also unbelievable that such a person with much experience that too started for a short 7 days leave was late to report at the counter as stated by the opposite parties. Whatever it may be the opposite parties have repeatedly stated in their version that the flight was left 7 empty seats in total. If it was true, then they can very well prove their case by producing the passengers chart and the vacant seat numbers and the list of passengers who are not travelled in that flight due to late reporting. But the opposite parties have not produced the chart. So in the absence of evidence in this regard the contention of the opposite parties that the flight was left with7 vacant seats is not reliable or admissible.
So considering the facts stated and evidence on record we are of the view that not providing seat to the petitioner in the booked flight even when he was holding a confirmed ticket and thereby causing difficulties and financial loss to him is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Point No. 1 found accordingly.
Point No.2: In view of the findings in Point No.1 this petition is to be allowed and the petitioner is entitled to get reasonable reliefs. The petitioner demanded Rs.60,000/- as compensation for this mental pain, additional financial loss and other difficulties suffered. But he has not produced any evidence like taxi receipt etc. to show the exact additional expenses suffered due to the said act of the opposite parties. So the said demand of the petitioner cannot be allowed as such.
In the result, the following order is passed.
The 1st opposite party is ordered to refund the flight ticket charge of Rs.7,395/- (Rupees seven thousand three hundred ninety five only)with 9% interest from 03/06/2012 onwards to the petitioner and to pay Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) as compensation for his loss and sufferings and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as cost of the proceeding within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order. Failing which the entire amount will carry 9% interest per annum from the date of default till payment.
Dated this the 9th day of December, 2019
Date of filing23/08/2013
SD/-MEMBER SD/-PRESIDENT SD/-MEMBER
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
A1. Copy of E-Ticket Itinerary Receipt
A2. Copy of letter issued by the petitioner to the opposite parties
Documents exhibited for the opposite party:
B1. Copy of General Conditions of Carriage For Passengers and Baggage.
Witness examined for the complainant:
PW1. Major. Jassar S.M. (Complainant)
Witness examined for the opposite party:
None
Sd/-President
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
