Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/79/2013

S.Mahalingam. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jet Airways - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

14 Oct 2015

ORDER

                                                                            Date of Complaint  : 08.03.2013

                                                              Date of Order        : 14.10.2015

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT :    THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM, M.A.M.L.,                    :  PRESIDENT                     

                     DR.T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A D.Min HRDI, AIII,BCS  :  MEMBER II

                                                     

C.C.No. 79 / 2013

THIS  WEDNESDAY  14^th  DAY OF  OCOTBER 2015

 

Dr. S. Mahalingam,

No.1, Kanagasabai Colony,

Ring Road,

Koyambedu,

Chennai 600 107.                                                 .. Complainant.

                                                         - Vs-

 

The Manager, Jet Airways, 43/44, Theppar House, Opp. to Ambassadar Pallava Hotel, Monteith Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.                                                    .. Opposite party.		.. Opposite party.

For the complainant                     :      Party in person.   

For the opposite party                   :      M/s. Gupta & Ravi.   

 

           Complaint under section 12  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to the opposite party  to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant.  

 

ORDER

THIRU.   T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN ::    MEMBER-II

1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-

The complainant is a frequent traveler by air had travelled on 22.3.2012 by taking an electronic ticket from Chennai to Kolkota by flight No.9W 2450 in economic class and scheduled to reach Kolkota Nethaji Subhash Chandra Bose Air port by 9.45 a.m. and onward journey to Gauhati by flight 9W 619 at 10.15 am.    The complainant has got two boarding passes at Chennai Airport itself bound to Kolkota and Gauhati.  The gate no. was mentioned in Chennai to Kolkota wherein gate No. was not mentioned in Kolkota to Gauhati Boarding pass.  The complainant made allegation on the opposite party that there is no announcement either inside the Aircraft or to the passenger while coming out of the aircraft by the crew.  On alighting from the aircraft at Kolkota the complainant, gone out to the airport terminal building without getting himself to the connecting flight. The allegation of the complainant, there is no proper announcement or guide lines by the opposite party whereby he had missed the schedule flight where he is supposed to get into Gauhati flight at 10.15 a.m.  Since he had not  adequately taken initiative to find out himself to be transferred to the connecting flight within half an hour i.e. from 9.45 am. To 10.15 am., instead he has gone out of airport terminal building, whereby he missed the flight.   The complainant approached the confirmation counter and explained his position.  He having realized the situation he issued another boarding pass for 4.50 p.m. flight after collecting a sum of Rs.900/- informing the complainant it is only service charge.    The complainant approached the Spice jet counter to change his return journey pre-poning one day.  The staff were extremely courteous, humane and collected only the charge of Rs.800/- and changed his return ticket.  As such the act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and damages to the complainant.    Hence the complaint. 

Written version of  opposite parties  is  as follows:-

2.     At the outset the opposite party denies all the allegations and averments contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein and puts the complainant to strict proof of the allegations not admitted in this version.    The complainant was booked to travel in the flight No.9W 2450 of the opposite party form Chennai to Kolkata at 7.40 a.m. and thereafter to be transferred to the connecting flight 9W 619 from Kolkata to Guwahati which was to depart at 10.15 hours.  The complainant was one such passenger out of the five passengers who were to be transferred to the connecting flight for their onward flight to Guwahati from Kolkata.   As the flight started descending towards Kolkata repeated announcements were being made calling upon the passengers who were to continue their onward journey to Guwahati to contact the ground staff for their transfer by ramp upon alighting the flight.    On reaching Kolkata all the passenger alighted the flight and those passengers who were to continue their onward journey to Guwahati conveniently boarded the flight as per the announcements done on the flight with the help of the ground staff who were present near the flight stairs drawing the attention of passengers who were to board their connecting flight to Guwahati.   However the complainant failed to follow / notice the instructions and announcements made in the flight and alighted first from the flight in a hurry and proceeded towards the aerodrome terminal building.    The complainant upon entering the aerodrome found that the gate number was not indicated on the boarding pass.   Thereafter he tried to locate the gate number from the display board from which the passengers were to board the flight from Kolkatta to Guwahati and joined the queue to board the flight. 

3.     The staff monitoring the entry of passengers informed the complainant that he was not supposed to have come into the airport terminal building and that he ought to have follow the instructions and announcements made in the flight for getting himself transferred to the connecting flight.   He was also informed by the staff of the opposite party that the complainant could not be allowed for boarding along with the passengers boarding from Kolkatta as it violates certain protocols which were mandatory to be followed by the opposite party due to security reasons.    When the complainant insisted to be allowed for boarding,  he was informed that those passengers whose names are reflected alone can be allowed for boarding and that since the complainant’s name was not reflected in the passengers list as he was a transit passenger, he cannot be permitted to board the flight from Kolkata to Guwahati on flight No.9W 619.   However the complainant was informed by the staff of the opposite party that he need not panic as he could be alternatively accommodated in the next flight which was scheduled to depart at 10.55 hrs.  The complainant failed to contact the ticket confirmation counter for  processing his change of flight to travel by 10.55 hours flight and instead reached the counter much after the issuance of tickets for 10.55 hours flight counter was closed.    The complainant was informed that the next available flight was at 16.50 hrs and if he could be issued boarding pass for the 16.50 hours flight for which the complainant was ready to travel.  Hence the opposite party issued a boarding pass to travel by 16.50 hours flight and called upon the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.900/- towards tax and service charges the flight according to the complainant’s convenience.  It is denies that the opposite party called upon the complainant to pay the differential fare of  Rs.11,200/- at the confirmation counter and bring the receipt to board the 10.55 hours flight.   In fact the staff in the ticket confirmation counter informed the complainant that he was required to pay Rs.900/- towards service tax and other charges for issuance of the alternate ticket.   Hence the allegation that he was asked to pay the differential fare of Rs.11,200/- to board the 10.55 hours flight is false and hereby denied.    Since there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and prays to dismiss the complaint. 

 

 

4.         The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party ?

 

2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

 

 

5.  POINTS 1 & 2

           Perused the complaint  filed by the complainant, written version filed by the opposite party, proof affidavit filed by the both the parties and  Ex.A1 to Ex.A16  filed on the side of the complainant and considered both side arguments.

6.     The complainant is a frequent traveler by air had travelled in on 22.3.2012 by taking an electronic ticket from Chennai to Kolkota by flight No.9W 2450 in economic class and scheduled to reach Kolkota Nethaji Subha Chandra Air port by 9.45 a.m. and onward journey to Gauhati by flight 9W 619 at 10.15 am.    The complainant has got two boarding passes at Chennai Airport itself bound of Kolkota and Gauhati.  The gate no. was mentioned in Chennai to Kolkota wherein gate No. was not mentioned in Kolkota Gauhati Boarding pass.  The complainant made allegation on the opposite party that there is no announcement either inside the Aircraft or the passenger while coming out of the aircraft by the crew.  On alighting from the aircraft at Kolkota the complainant gone out to the airport terminal building without getting himself to connecting flight. The allegation there is no proper announcement or guide lines by the opposite party whereby he had missed the schedule flight where he is supposed to get into Gauhati flight at 10.15 a.m.  Since he had not  adequately taken initiative to find out himself to be transferred to the connecting flight within half an hour i.e. from 9.45 a.m. to 10.15 am.,  he has gone out of airport terminal building, whereby he missed the flight.  Though the complainant alleged the opposite party in his written version itself, that his hand baggage containing medicine, breakfast and water were snatched by the opposite party’s staff, in another statement he himself admit that he doesn’t carry along with him hand luggage which is contradictory. He himself admitted in his complaint that he hurriedly rushed to the counter with his hand baggage in hasty  to board in flight  and fell on the floor resulting into a mishap which caused injury / fracture  for which the opposite party is not held responsible.   Normally, in practice, the complainant as a frequent traveler by air would have known once he left outside the airport terminal, it is a long process to get in to all the formalities of the air authorities.   Once the passenger alighted from the air bus the crew will announce the transit passengers to catch the connecting flight through the transfer entry gate others will have go on the exit gate.  Incidentally the complainant instead of entering through transit gate he has entered into the other gate which had led him to face all these hurdles.  

7.     The complainant allegation on demanding extra fare where the opposite party denied and collected Rs.900/- being the extra charges preparing alternative accommodation to go to Gauhati.   The ground staff and the crew of the aircraft are expected to be extremely courteous,  humane in making the passengers happy whereby the opposite party’s staff /crew  were courteous  in accommodating the complainant to board into the other craft to Guahati. 

 

8.     In the written argument Column No.10 to 14 the complainant has given citation of S.C.D.R.C. Chennai and DCDRF, Chennai South and North which doesn’t have a standing pertaining to his complaint where the complainant is expected to be cautious to board into the flight in the schedule time.   The time is only half an hour to have a transit to go into catch the flight to Gauhati wherein in his other statement is 45 minutes time is there to catch the flight. 

 

9.     We are of the considered view that the complainant has not taken adequate precaution to know about his schedule of time to transfer from one aircraft to other air craft.  The complainant has gone out of the aerodrome which led to missing of the flight.    The injury caused to the complainant does not have any bearing with the opposite party, since it is the negligence of the complainant.  The allegation raised against the opposite party by the complainant is not acceptable since the opposite party made the complainant to travel in the aircraft to Gauhati whereas the co-passengers who accompany the complainant were boarded in time and no allegations were preferred by them.  Hence we are of the opinion that the negligence of the opposite party has not been proved hence the complaint liable to be dismissed and points 1 & 2 are decided accordingly.  

        In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No cost.    

      Dictated directly by the Member-II to the Assistant, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-II and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 14^th     day of  October   2015.

 

 

MEMBER-II                                                                                                   PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s Side documents :

Ex.A1- 10.11.2012     - Copy of notice to opposite party.

Ex.A2-  12.11.2012    - Copy of proof of delivery singed by opposite party.

Ex.A3- 20.3.2012      - Copy of air ticket.

Ex.A4- 22.2.2012      - Copy of invitation from Gauhati University.

Ex.A5- 22.3.2012      - Copy of boarding passes.

          23.3.2012

 

Ex.A6- 24.3.2012      - Return ticket.

Ex.A7- 22.3.2012      - Copy of Jet Airways differential fare collected at Kolkata.

Ex.A8- 23.3.2012      - Copy of Spice Jet ticket.

Ex.A9- 22.3.2012      - Copy of Doctor’s prescription in Gauhati.

Ex.A10- 25.3.2012     - Complainant’s photograph with bandage.

Ex.A11- 25.3.2012     - Copy of Bandage charge, Laboratory bills.

Ex.A12- 31.3.2012     -  Copy of Doctors prescription and medicine bill.

Ex.A13- 18.4.2012     - Copy of Railway ticket. 

Ex.A14- 30.4.2012     - Copy of Govt. Hospital  ticket.

Ex.A15- 29.5.2012     - Copy of railway tickets.

Ex.A16- 23.11.2012   - Copy of railway tickets.

 

Opposite party’s side documents: -    .. Nil ..  

 

 

 

 MEMBER-II                                                                                                PRESIDENT.