BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE

Dated this the 8^th December 2016

PRESENT

SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D         : HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SRI. T.C. RAJASHEKAR                      : HON’BLE MEMBER

ORDER IN

C.C.No.272/2012

(Admitted on 30.8.2012)

Mrs. Geneview Irene D Souza,

W/o Robert Souza,

Aged about 50 years,

Residing at Anthony Domicile,

Opposite Ankadakatte, Post Koteshwara,

Kundapura, Updupi.

                                                                           ….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri MSM)

VERSUS

Jet Airways,

Office situated at Rambhavan Complex,

Near City point, Kodialbail,

Mangalore, represented by its,

The Branch Manager.

                                                 ......OPPOSITE PARTY

 (Advocate for the Opposite Party: Sri. SM)

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D:

I.       1. The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against claiming certain reliefs. 

The brief facts of the case are as under:

     The complainant contends she had purchased ticket from Mangalore to London via Mumbai and back the ticket journey was on 14.7.2011 from journey Mangalore via Mumbai was on 23.11.2011.  But on the return journey the Aircraft was supposed to reach at Mumbai at 11.30 Am and she was scheduled to Mangalore flight No.9W-2133 on 24.11.2011.    But due to delay in the aircraft and in a failure of opposite party to take precaution in arranging to connecting flight and special transportation from Sahara Airport to Domestic Air Port after complainant had  completed immigration there was a possibility to miss the flight to Mangalore.   

     2.     There was an advice with opposite party official at Mumbai Airport she travelled to Bangalore from 3 pm flight and from Bangalore to Mangalore at 19.00 hrs. Due to delay in that 3 pm flight there was delay in reaching Bangalore and she missed the flight in Mangalore due to irresponsibility on the part of the opposite parties officials and attitude without being any kind of accommodation the complainant had to stay at Bangalore Airport.  No food was provided to complainant by opposite party except water. After reaching Mumbai on 24.11.2011 to 25.11.2011.  Hence due to the mental agony and inhumane treatment to complainant’s got issued Legal Notice to complainant this was not complied by opposite party.  Hence seeks compensation as prayed. 

II.     In the condition on the ticket issued to complainant there is clearly mentioned that the Carrier assumes no responsibility for making connections The airlines reserve the rights to cancel the flights without assigning any reason under Rule 19 Carriage by Air Act 1972 the liable in respect of delay of journey no liability for damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air the passengers, baggage or cargo.  The alleged delay caused in the flights is wrongly denied.  The complainant had booking on different two flights from London to Mangalore not on the direct flight.  The flight to Mumbai to Mangalore as per on 9W 117 on 23.11.2011 and from Mumbai to Mangalore in flight no 9W 2133 on 24.112011 no assurance were given to complainant as flight alleged.  The complainant was booked on the next flight 9W 2735 on the next on 25.11.2011 departure on 0715 hrs she travelled on the said flight which informed the complainant did not disclosed.  In case of delay of flight due to Extra Ordinary Circumstances opposite party is not liable to provide food and accommodation to the passengers under Rule 1.4, 1.5 and Rule3.4.3 of the CAR dated 6.8.2010.  Hence seeks dismissal of complainant.

     2.     In support of the above complainant Mrs. Geneview Irene DSouza filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on her and produced documents got marked as Ex.C1 to C4 detailed in the annexure here below.  On behalf of the opposite party Mr. Gladwyn Mascarenhas (RW1) Airport Manager, Jet Airways (I) Ltd., Mangalore also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked as Ex R1 to R7 detailed in the annexure here below.

III.     In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
2. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the other reliefs claimed?
3. What order?

      We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:         

               Point No. (i): Affirmative

              Point No. (ii): Partly Affirmative

              Point No.(iii): As per the final order.                  

REASONS

IV.   POINTS No. (i): As seen from the rival contentions the complainant was a passenger having purchased ticket in the flights of opponent the service provider the complainant has raised certain issues in reporting of the flight and the condition of the travel which was disputed by opposite party.  Hence there is a consumer dispute between the parties as mention under the C P Act.   Hence we answer point No.1 in the affirmative.

POINTS No. (ii):  In the complaint of the complainant mentioned here connecting flight from Mumbai to Mangalore had already left when she reached Mumbai Air Port and she was advice to travel to Bangalore and from there to Mangalore by flight and in her answer to her interrogatories she did admit for these flight she has not paid flight charges.   In fact the opposite party did mention the travel of complainant from Bangalore to Mangalore on 25.11.2011 flight which is not disclosed in the complaint. 

     2.      As to the allegations of the complainant that as opposite party did not make arrangement for the domestic flight at Mumbai Air Port for flight from Mumbai to Mangalore on 24.11.2011 and as such she missed the flight, but however opposite party have taken a consistent stand including in the affidavit evidence of Air Port Manager, Jet Airway (I) Ltd, Mangalore that the said flight from Mumbai to Mangalore was cancelled and not that the complainant missed the flight due to delay on the part of opposite party.  The complainant did admit she purchased the separate tickets from London to Mumbai and then from Mumbai to Mangalore.  As such in our view opposite party cannot be held liable for the delay caused if at all for the arrival of the flight at Mumbai or for alleged failure to provide facility from customs at Mumbai International terminal to domestic terminal.

    3.      In fact opposite party did admit the complainant purchased had a valid ticket from on the flight from Mumbai to Mangalore on 24.11.2011.  But as she did not get into that flight the opposite party offer alternative route free of cost from Mumbai to Bangalore and from there to Mangalore.  She did undertake the journey on the same day to Bangalore but she admittedly missed the flight from Bangalore to Mangalore on 25.11.2011. The complainant specially asserted except for water opposite party as not made any arrangements either for food or stay at Bangalore Airport.  That food was not also severed is admitted by opponents.  As it is their case it is none of their business to provide to stay and food.

   4.       Under 3.4 of Civil Aviation Requirements Section 3 Series M Part IV issued on dated 6^th August 2010 effective form 15.8.2010 marked Ex.R6.  As per 3.4.1 the facilities as mentioned under:

3.4.1 The airlines shall provide facilities in accordance with Para 3.6.1 (a) if the passenger has checked in on time, and if the airline expects a delay beyond its original announced scheduled time of departure or a revised time of departure of:

         5.     As per  3.6 3.6.1 facilities as mentioned reads:

3.6.1 Passengers shall be offered free of charge the following:

a) Meals and refreshments in relation to waiting time.

b) Hotel Accommodation when necessary (including transfers)

6.       3.4.1( c)  reads :

(c) 4 hours or more in case of flight not falling under sub-Para (a) and (b) of Para 3.4.1

    7.     It is the case of opposite party that under 3.4.3 the opposite party is not obliged to adhere to Para 3.6 extra ordinary circumstances 3.4.3 reads:

    An operating airline shall not be obliged to adhere to Para 3.6 if the delay is caused due to extra ordinary circumstances as defined in Para 1.4 and Para 1.5 which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.

    8.      However though opposite party produced Ex.R5 purported to be piloted note mentioning the delay in air traffic clearance.  But we are unable to decipher the contends of Ex.R5.  This much is certain in Ex.R5 the date mentioned is 9W 2735 25^th Nov BLR we unable to decipher the rest and purpose of this note.  Thus considering the entire facts as above we are of the opinion the complainant succeeded in establishing that the opposite party failed to provide the facility of food and stay to complainant for the delay in flight from Bangalore to Mangalore though not for the cancelled alleged flight from Mumbai to Mangalore.  Considering that the opposite party had issued the two flight tickets without any extra charge to complainant from Mumbai to Bangalore and then from Bangalore to Mangalore question of awarding compensation on this count of travel allowances does not arise.  However we are of the view opposite party cannot escape liable to pay compensation towards not provide no food and facility to stay at Bangalore Airport.  We assess this at Rs.10,000 towards inconvenience caused another sum of Rs.30,000/ totally a sum of Rs.40,000/ in our view it is just and proper.  Rs. 3,000/ towards litigation expense is just and proper.  Hence we answer point No.2 partly in the affirmative.

POINTS No. (iii):  Wherefore the following order

                                                                                                                   ORDER

       The complaint is partly allowed. Opposite party directed to pay Rs.40,000/ (Rupees Forty thousand only) to complainant with interest at 8% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of payment.  Opposite party shall also pay Rs.3,000/ (Rupees Three thousand only) towards cost of the litigation of  complaint.

Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.

(Page No.1 to 9 directly dictated by President to computer system to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 8^th December 2016)

               MEMBER                                              PRESIDENT

(SRI. T.C. RAJASHEKAR)              (SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)

D.K. District Consumer Forum                D.K. District Consumer Forum

 Additional Bench, Mangalore                  Additional Bench, Mangalore

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1 – Mrs. Geneview Irene D’ Souza

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.C1:                  : Original E Ticket copy dated 14.07.2011

Ex.C2: 9.3.2012     : Office copy of the legal Notice

Ex.C3: 10.3.2012   : Acknowledgement

Ex.C4: 9.03.2012   : Postal Receipt

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

RW1: Mr. Gladwyn Mascarenhas (RW1) Airport Manager, jet Airways (I) Ltd., Mangalore.

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:

Ex.R1: Copy of the print out of terms and conditions of e-tickets

Ex.R2: Copy order the carriage by AIR Act, 1972

Ex.R3: Print out copy of the Virtual Coupon Record of the ticket Vide 589.2185300121

Ex.R4: A Copy of the Pilot sector report of the flight 9W2105 (Mumbai to Bangalore) of 21.11.2011

Ex.R5: A Copy of the relevant portion of the erecord of the flight (Passenger Manifast) of the flight 9W2735 of 25.11.2011

Ex.R6:  Copy of the Civil Aviation requirements dated 06.08.2010

Ex.C7:  Authorization  letter

Dated:  08.12.2016                                         PRESIDENT