Kerala

StateCommission

A/14/284

AIR INDIA LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

KASTURI MANI, DIRECTOR - Opp.Party(s)

R JAGADISH KUMAR

17 Sep 2015

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.284/14

JUDGMENT DATED :17.09.2015

 

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.22/2004 on the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram order dated : 17.12.2013)

 

PRESENT

 

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR   : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT.A.RADHA                         : MEMBER

SMT.SANTHAMMA THOMAS   : MEMBER

 

APPELLNAT

 

Air India Ltd,

Air India Buildings,

Museum Road,

Vellayambalam,

Thiruvananthapuram

 

Appellant is rep.by S.B.S.Jacob,

Present Station Manager,

Air India Ltd,

Air India Buildings,

Museum Road,

Vellayambalam,

Thiruvananthapuram

 

(By Adv.Sri.R.Jagadish kumar)

 

Vs

RESPONDENTS

 

1. Kasturi Mani,

Director,

Kalakaumudi,

Kumarapuram,

Thiruvananthapuram

 

2.K.Sasikumar,

Retd. KSEB Member

T.C.13/1356, BRRA – 237,

Kumarapuram,

Thiruvananthapuram

 

3.Rohini Sasikumar,

Residing at T.C.13/1356, BRRA – 237,

Kumarapuram

 

4.Padmini Sasikumar,

Residint at T.C.13/1356,

BRRA – 237,

Kumarapuram,

Thiruvananthapuram

 

5.Roopa Prasannan,

Sree Niketan,

Division Office Road,

PMG Junction,

Thiruvananthapuram

 

6.Rekha Prasannan,

Sree Niketan,

Division Office Road,

Division Office Road,

PMG Junction,

Thiruvananthapuram

 

7.Rajeev Prasannan,

Sree Niketan,

Division Office Road,

PMG Junction,

Thiruvananthapuram

 

8. Shaji Vaisakh (Minor),

Rep.by the first complainant,

Kasturi Mani

 

9. Pranav (Minor) rep.

By the 4^th complainant

 

JUDGMENT

 

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR   : JUDICIAL MEMBER

        Appellant was the opposite party in CC.No.22/2004 in the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. Respondents were the complainants. They had booked air tickets through M/s.Akbar Travels, India for journey to Mumbai on 20.12.2003 and return journey from Mumbai to Thiruvananthapuram on 27.12.2003. They were issued confirmed tickets for onward and return journeys. The return flight was scheduled to start at 9 .15 pm on 27.12.2003. It is alleged in the complaint that they had received telephonic message on 27.12.2003 from the officials of the opposite party intimating that the return flight was cancelled and was rescheduled on the next day that is on 28.12.2003 at 6.am. The reason for cancellation is known to the opposite party only. The complainants were asked to report at the airport at 4 am on 28.12.2003. The complainants were staying in their hotel which was 35 kms away from the airport terminal. Hence though it was difficult, the complainants reached the airport terminal on time. But the duty officer of the opposite party informed that the flight had already left at 11.30 p.m on 27.12.2003 itself and the message was issued by a mistake on their part. After much compulsion and persuasion, the duty officer promised to make alternative arrangements for their return journey to Thiruvananthapuram through domestic flight which terminal was 8 kms away from the International Airport. As instructed by the duty officer, the complainants reported at domestic terminal. But they were informed that no seat was available in any of the flights to Thiruvananthapuram. When approached again the duty officer rebooked tickets for travel on 30.12.2003 at 8a.m. The complainants reached Thiruvananthapuram on that day. The food and accommodation provided by the opposite party were poor. The complainants had to travel long distances to find food and accommodation suitable to their standard of living. The deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the opposite party caused mental agony and inconveniences to the complainants. Hence they claimed damages of Rs.4,00,000/-.

        2. The opposite party contended before the consumer forum that the flight on 27.12.2003 was cancelled due to technical reasons which were beyond the control of the opposite parties. The cancellation of the flight was intimated to the complainants and then there were some changes in rescheduling the flight time. The opposite party tried to intimate the rescheduled flight time but the complainants were not in the hotel and so the message could not be intimated. The officials of the opposite party provided five star hotel accommodation and food to the complainants. The opposite party is unaware whether the complainants are students or professionals. Due to any act of the opposite party no mental agony or inconvenience was caused to the complainants. There was no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.

        3.     Before the consumer forum the second complainant gave evidence as PW1. Exts.P1 & P2 were marked on the side of the complainants. The opposite party adduced no oral evidence but marked Exts.D1 & D2 on their side. The consumer forum on finding that deficiency in service was committed by the opposite party directed payment of compensation of Rs.10,000/- each to the complainants and Rs.8000/- towards cost. Aggrieved by the said order of the forum opposite party has preferred this appeal. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the order of the consumer forum requires interference.

        4.     There is no dispute that the complainant had confirmed return air tickets from Mumbai to Thiruvananthapuram in the flight operated by the appellant and the flight was scheduled to leave Mumbai at 9.15 pm on 27.12.2003. It is admitted in the version that flight was cancelled due to technical reasons. The contention is that the flight had to be cancelled due to reasons beyond the control of the opposite party .But it is for the opposite party to arrange alternative flight at the earliest. The contention is that cancellation of the flight was intimated to the complainants. It is further admitted that changes were made in the rescheduled flight times. The grievance of the complainants is that they were never intimated the change in the rescheduled flight time and as a result they missed the return flight. The allegation is that contrary to the intimation to arrive at the airport at 4.am on 28.12.2003, the flight left at 11.30 p.m. on 27.12.2003. That this allegation is true can be seen from the admission that though the opposite party tried to intimate the rescheduled flight time, the message could not be given as the complainants were not in the hotel. So not only that the change in the rescheduled flight time was not intimated, the opposite party never tried to contact the complainants over mobile phone. So the fact remains that the rescheduled flight left contrary to the intimation given to the complainants regarding the rescheduled flight time. There was consequent delay and ultimately rebooking of return flight was necessitated .The complainants could reach Thiruvananthapuram only on 30.12.2003 as seen from Ext.P2 series. In the background of the admitted facts, the appellant cannot contend that there is no inconvenience or suffering on the part of the complainants. Time is valuable for any person. It is true that complainants 8 & 9 are minors but it cannot be said that they did not suffer any inconvenience at all. In short, there is no error in the finding of the consumer forum that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.

        5.     In awarding compensation, the consumer forum took into account the fact that appellant gave accommodation to the complainants till their departure from Mumbai, Only 10,000/- was directed to be paid to each of the complainants as compensation. Having regard to the extent of deficiency committed the compensation awarded appears to be reasonable. In short, there is no merit in the appeal. Hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

        In the result, the appeal is dismissed but without costs.

K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

A.RADHA                         : MEMBER

 

 

SANTHAMMA THOMAS   : MEMBER

 

 

Be/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

 CONSUMER DISPUTES

 REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHARLANE

VAZHUTHACADU

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.284/14

JUDGMENT DATED :17.09.2015

 

                                                                            BE/