Case No. 18/2015 
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM - 11 
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area 
                        (Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-11 0016. 

Case No. 18/2015 

    sn. Debasis Mukherjee        (SENIOR CITIZEN 63YRS OLD 
Son of Late Dr. D. Mukherjee 

Resident of 8-125, SFS Triveni Apartments, 
Sheikh Sarai Phase-I 
    New Delhi. 110 017                                    Cornptai: ant     ...             
Versus 

Jet Airways (India) Limited 
Through its Managing Director 
G 11/12, Outer Circle, 
G-8lcok, Connaught Circus, 
Connaught Place 
New Delhi-110001 

D. Pauls Travel & Tours Limited 
Through its Managing Director 
8-36, Ground Floor, Shivalik 
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-110017         . Opposite Parties

Date of Institution 19.01.' 015 
Date of Order       23.05.2017 

Coram: 
Sh. N.K. Goel, President             
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member     

ORDER

The case of the Complainant is that he purchased three air 

tickets in economy class from OP No. 2 who is . an agent 0: 01) 

No. 1 for himself, his wife Smt. Indrani Mukherjee and hIS SOt' 

Sh Deepankar Mukherjee for travel from Delhi to Toronto on 

27.09.2014 and return from Toronto to Delhi on 10.10.2014, that 

1 
                                                                      Case No. 18/2015 

, ' ., 

they were pre-booked Ipre-allocated seat No. 33 D for himself, 33 
C for his wife and 33A for their son for travel from Delhi to Toronto 
and seat No. 34D for himself, 34C for his wife and seat no. 34A 
for their son from Toronto to Delhi; that the complainant and his 
wife being senior citizens needed to travel in reasonable comfort 
in economy class cabin and, therefore, while booking' tickets the 
Complainant had specifically requested the OPs to book tickets 
only if the said desired tickets which were being offered by OP 
. 
NO.2 and reflected in the CRS were made available to them. 
The Complainant paid a total amount of Rs. 2,44,5001- to the OP 
No. 2 who received the same for and on behalf of OP No. 1 
towards the issuance of air tickets. However, it is stated that to the 
utter shock and disbelief of the Complainant when he reached 
the IGI Airport Terminal-3, New Delhi on 27.09.2014 to board the 
flight to Toronto i.e. 9W230 at the check- in counter owned and 
operated by the OP NO.1 , the employee of OP NO.1 manning the 
said counter, claimed that no seats had been pre-allocated to 
them and the staff also refused to honour the pre-allocated 
seats which were clearly printed on the air tickets; that not only 
that the staff and the higher officials of the OP No. 1 also 
misbehaved with them and ultimately on the instructions of Sh. 
Ashwani, Duty Manager and in-charge of the shift they were 

2 

Case No. 18/2015 
allocated seats No. 47D, 47E and 47G which were not only the 
most uncomfortable seats in the entire aeroplane but they were 
the seats on the very last row i.e adjacent to the rear toilets; that 
the Complainant and his family suffered the most harrowing-19- 
hours long' journey from Delhi to Toronto; that they were 
continuously disturbed by the other passengers who were using 
toilets throughout the journey and even the flight staff made no 
efforts to clean the said toilets on regular intervals. The entire 
condition at the rear seats was completely unhygienic due to the 
constant influx of other passengers using the toilets on regular 
intervals. Besides other facts, the case of the Complainant is that 
on account' of sleep deprivation and discomfort he fell ill by the 
time he reached Toronto and had to seek medical advice and was 
advised complete rest. His case is that his efforts with the OPs to 
solve his grievance did not yield any result. Hence, pleading gross 
deficiency in service and mis-conduct on the part of the OPs the 
Complainant has filed the present complaint for issuing following 
directions:- 
    (i)     Direct the Opposite Parties     to pay an amount of 
Rs. 5,00,0001- (rupees five lacks only) to the Complainant 
jointly and severally towards compensation arising from 

3 

Case No. 18/2015 
    deficiency and     absence of service and bogus 
    service(including     refund of the monies paid "by the 
Complainant to them for purchase of the aforesaid tickets 
alongwith pre-allocated seats); 
    (ii)     Direct the Opposite Parties to jointly and severally pay 
interest @24% per annum on the aforesaid amount e f 
27.09.2014 (the date when the Complainant made the entire 
payment towards the purchase of the tickets) till the date of 
actual payment of compensation to him; 
(iii) Direct the Opposite Parties to jointly and severally pay 
the cost of the present litigation to the Complainant. 
In the Written statement OP No. 1 & 2 (Ashwani Kumar Duty 
Officer of OPNo.1) have stated that the complaint arises out of the 
triviality and be dismissed outright on this ground. It is stated that the 
offer of pre-allocation of seats are value addition to the services provided 
by the OP No. 1 without charging any additional amount to the 
passengers and thus the word "offer" used by the Complainant in the 
complaint is inappropriate. It is stated that these seat selections are 
always subject to change and it is only a value addition to the services 
extended to the passenger and at the same time non chargeable or, in 
other words, the alleged seats selected by the Complainant were 
4 

Case No. 18/2015 
subject to availability and cannot be termed as an error on the part of 
the OPs. It is stated as under:- 
"It is submitted that the true and correct facts are; for the 1 st 
    segment     i.e.     Delhi-Toronto,     the     Passenger     Name 
Record(PNR)- record stored in the computer system of 
answering respondent did not shows any pre-reservation of 

seats. 

Further, the ticket copies enclosed by the 

complainant from page 19 to 24 alongwith the complaint is 
issued by OP 2 and generated in the format suited to OP 2 
    and the same is not generated from     answering OP's 
, 
systems. The E-ticket of answering OP does not reflect 
seats which are pre-reserved for any passenger, as pre- 
    reserved     seats are not confirmed     till the passengers 
actually checks -in on those seats. Thus, it is crystal clear 
that OP 2 without confirming seats for complainant and his 
family onto the system of answering OP airline, merely 
assigned so called "confirm" seat numbers to the ticket 
which' practically never became effective .. It is only because 
of this reason, the aforesaid PNR which IS very necessary 
and primary document which has to be generated onto the 
system of the answering OP for confirmation of the ticket, 

5 

~ .. 

Case No. 18/2015 
does not indicate any record/entry which would have 
established the fact that preferred seats were confirmed by 
OP 2 onto the system of answering OP while booking tickets 
for the complainant and for this, complainant be put to 
strictest proof. Further, being a wide body aircraft, 
complainants were assigned most comfortable seats unlike 
what he has stated in the complaint. It is submitted that now 
a days the aircrafts are made using state of he art 
technology, due which even those passengers occupying the 
most rear seats, does not face slightest trouble during their 
journey to any destination. Further, being a professionally 
managed Company, none of its staff ever tried to influence 
the complainant and his family members to let them feel 
inconvenience nor subject to them and had taken good care 
of them throughout the journey. Rest of the allegations and 
averments are disputed and denied for want of knowledge 
and complainant be put to strictest proof thereof. " 
It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed. 
In the written statement OP NO.3 D. Pauls Travel & Tours limited 
(now OP-2) has inter-alia stated that there is no need to tell about 
location of seats' as the same was printed on the tickets. It is pleaded 

6 

J 

Case No. 18/2015 
there is no alleged deficiency in service or mis-conduct committed by 
the OP No. 2 which makes it liable to adequately compensat the 
complainant jointly and severally for alleged act of omission or deletion. 
It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed. 
The Complainant has filed rejoinders to the written statements and 
has reiterated the averments made in the complaint. 
The Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the 
other hand, affidavit of Ms Kirti Sarin, Authorized Representative has 
been filed on behalf of OP No.1 and 2 and affidavit of Sh. Raghuvinder 
Pal Singh, Director of OP No.3. 
Sh. Ashwani who was impeded as OP No. 2 has since been 
dropped. Therefore, we shall now refer OP No.3 D. Paul Travel Tours 
Ltd. as OP No.2. 
We have heard the arguments on behalf of the parties and have 
also gone through the record. 
Facts which are not in dispute are that the Complainant had 
booked three air tickets in economy class for himself, his wife and their 
son from Delhi to Toronto of OP No.1 through OP No.2 D. Pauls Tour 
and Travels, an authorized agent of OP No.1, for the journey to be 
undertaken by them on 27.09.2014. While issuing three tickets to the 
Complainant the OP No.2 had pre-allocated seat No. 330, 33C, 33A to 

7 

I 

Case No. 18/2015 

them and the same was shown in their air tickets. The copies of the air 

tickets are Exhibit CW/1A in which seat No. 33D for the Complainant, 

    34C for his wife and 33A for their son had     been pre-allocated as 

confirmed seats. This has been confirmed by OP No. 2 by not 

challenging this fact in the written statement and by simply stating that 

there was no need to tell about allocation of the seats as the same was 

printed on the tickets. However, according to the OP NO.1 these seats 

selection are always subject to change and it is only a value addition to 

the services extended to the passenger and at the same time non 

chargeable. According to the OP NO.1 the allotted seats selected by the 

Complainant were subject to availability and hence cannot be termed as 

an error on part of the OP NO.1. Thus, it is crystal clear that the OP 

NO.1 has also not denied about the pre-allocation of above (confirmed) 

seats to the Complainant, his wife and their son by OP NO.2 It is very 

surprising that the OP No. 1 has taken a plea that the PNR record 

stored in the computer system of OP No. 1 did not show a prior 

reservation of the seats or that tickets copies are enclosed by the 

Complainant alongwith the complaint were issued by OP No. 2 and 

generated in the format suited to OP NO.2 and the same was not 

generated in the OP NO.1 's system. Very surprising is the fact that the 

OP No. 1 has taken a plea that e-ticket of OP does not reflect the 

seats which are pre-reserved for any passenger, as pre- served seat 

8 

Case No. 18/2015 
are not confirmed till the passengers actually check- in these seats. We 
must say at once that the Complainant, his wife and their son had gone 
for check- in at the counter of the OP No.1 on 27.09.2014 and it were 
. the duty staff members of the OP No.1 who did not allocate these seats 
to them. There is evidence on the record to show that the staff of OP 
No. 1 had indulged in unnecessary conversation with the complainant 
and his two family members and that ultimately the staff on duty of OP 
No. 1 at the check-in-counter had allocated them seat Nos. 470, 47E 
and 47G in the extreme rear portion of the air-craft and in all 
probabilities on the instructions of Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Manager on duty 
and in-charge of the shift whose duty at the check-in-counter is that shift 
has not been denied by the OP No.1 and also by Sh. Ashwani Kumar 
himself while filing the written statement alongwith the OP No.1. OP No. 
1 has not shown any reason as to why the Complainant and his two 
family members were not allocated seats No. 330, 33C and 33A. OP 
No 1 has not shown any exigency and/or any other emergent condition 
which had forced its staff members to the allocate already pre-allocated 
seats to them. The pre-allocation of seats may be non-chargeable 
service but if any such service is offered to the passenger it becomes a 
part of the offer given by the OP No. 1 and becomes an attractive 
feature of the scheme floated by the OP No.1 air-lines or any other air- 
lines. If the passenger/s is/are sold tickets by pre-allocating particular 
9 
I 

Case No. 18/2015 
seat number/s as per his/their desire and thereafter at the time of check- 
in he/they are not allocated the same seat/seats by the air-lines staff for 
any reason other than arising out of contingency and emergency the 
same amounts to cheating and also an act of unfair trade practice 
In the present case, the staff on duty at the check-in-counter of OP 
NO.1 on 27.09.14 had acted in an absolute and arbitrary manner. 
Instead of allotting the pre-allocated seats to the complainant and his 
two family members or some other convenient seats in the front portion 
or even in the rear portion they were allocated seats in the last row i.e. 
seat Nos. 470, 47E & 47G. Pre-allocation of seats to them did not 
become a boon for them and the same was converted into a curse by 
the staff on duty of OP NO.1. 
Another dispute is that OP No.2, an agent of OP NO.1 had issued 
three air tickets for their journey from Delhi to Toronto as per their 
system which was not generated on the system of OP NO.1. There must 
have been a contract between OP NO.1 and OP NO.2 in this regard. No 
passenger can be a signatory to any such agreement or contract. 
Therefore, it was an internal arrangement or understanding betweer the 
OP No. 1 & OP NO.2 about the pre-allocation of the seats to the 
passengers. If particular seat nos. were pre- allocated by OP No.2 to 
the Complainant and his two family members at time of booking of 

10 

I 

Case No. 18/2015 
tickets and the same were shown in their respective tickets, the same 
must have also been reflected in the computer system of OP NO.1. If 
the same were not reflected in the system of OP No.1, the Complainant 
or his family members could not be put at fault for this and this was 
certainly a communication gap between the OP NO.1 and its Agent, OP 
No 2. There is no evidence on the record to show that OP NO.1 had 
made any enquiry from OP NO.2 in this regard. 
OP No. 1 has taken a plea that the complaint arises out of 
triviality. The said term "triviality" is a new term for us in the context of 
the facts of the present case. The Complainant and his two family 
members were pre-allocated the particular seat numbers for their 
journey from Delhi to Toronto for completing 19 hours journey. They 
were not allocated these seats at the check-in counter of OP NO.1. We 
do not have any hesitation in saying that they were forced to occupy 
seat Nos. 470, 47E and 47G as per the vicious will of the staff on duty 
of OP No. 1 at the check-in-counter. It is a matter of common 
knowledge that the rear seats are adjacent to the two toilets situated on 
the rear side of the aircraft . One Pantry is also located in the rear 
portion of the aircraft. Cabin crew serve the food and beverages to the 
passengers in trolleys from the pantry itself. Passengers frequently 
use the toilets during the course of their long journey of 19 hours. 

11 

I 

Case No. 18/2015 
Therefore, possibilities cannot be ruled out that it may become very 
difficult to accommodate oneself in the rear seat. Rear seatls are 
always accepted by the passenger/s when no other alternative is 
available with him/her/them. In the present case, inspite of the fact that 
the Complainant, had already been pre-allocated seat Nos. 33D,33C & 
33A they were forced to occupy seats no. 470, 47E and' 47 G for 
undertaking their 19 hours long journey from Delhi to Toronto . 
Therefore, in our considered opinion, there was certainly an element of 
unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OP NO.1. 
We do not hold OP NO.2 guilty for any unfair trade practice and lor 
any deficiency in service because the job of OP NO.2 had finished 
immediately after tickets were booked by the Complainant for self and 
his two family members and after receiving the amount for the tickets by 
showing the pre- allocated seat numbers as confirmed therein as per the 
prevalent scheme of OP NO.1. 
In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the complaint against 
OP NO.2 but allow the complaint against OP NO.1 Jet Air Ways (In ia ) 
Ltd. Accordingly we direct the OP No. 1 to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- in 
lumpsum to the Complainant as compensation for mental pain and 
agony and cost of litigation within 30 days from the date of receipt of 
copy of this order failing which OP NO. 1 shall be liable to pay th said 

I 
Case No. 18/2015 
amount alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the 
complaint till the date of realization. 
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 
of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to 
record room. 

(N.K.GOEL) 
RESIDENT 

(NAIN BAKSHI) 
MEMBER 

Announced on 23.05.2017.