DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

=============

Rupinder Singh son of Sh. Joginder Singh, resident of House No.1811, Phase VII, Mohali.

---Complainant

Vs

Kingfisher Airlines Limited, having its office at Kingfisher House, Western Express Highway, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai 400099 (India), through its Managing Director.

---- Opposite Party

BEFORE:     SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA                            PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                     MEMBER

                   SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU                   MEMBER

Argued By:  Sh. Judgepreet Singh, Proxy Counsel for

Sh. Gagandeep Toni, Counsel for Complainant.  

Sh. Yadvinder Singh Dhillon, Counsel for Opposite Party.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

1.                The instant complaint relates to alleged deficiency in service by the Kingfisher Airlines, as the Complainant could not board a flight of ‘Go Air’ from Mumbai, due to the alleged delay caused by the Opposite Party.

                   Factually speaking, the Complainant and his family members had travelled by the flight of the Opposite Party from Chandigarh to Mumbai. The flight which was scheduled to reach Mumbai at 5:50 in the evening, reached Mumbai at 6:45 PM. Due to this, the Complainant was not able to board a connecting flight, which was to depart at 7:35 PM from Terminal IB.  As per the Complainant, the ferrying bus took 15 minutes to carry the Complainant and his family to Terminal-I and they got their luggage 10 minutes after that. By this time, the counter of ‘Go Air’ through which the Complainant was scheduled to go to Nanded, closed and he was not allowed to board the plane.  The Complainant and his family had reported at the counter at 19.14 hrs. whereas, the scheduled departure of the flight for Nanded was 19:35 hrs.  The Complainant has alleged that despite request to the Opposite Party to help them board the plane for Nanded, the Opposite Party refused to accommodate the Complainant in anyway.   The Complainant thus had to arrange accommodation for himself and his family members out of which 2 were children and two were senior citizens. The Complainant has alleged that they suffered a lot of mental tension because of the deficient services rendered by the Opposite Party.

                   The Complainant has stated that because of the delay, the Complainant had to cancel all his bookings, and re-book all his flights and accommodation accordingly (the Complainant has placed on record all booked tickets and re-booked tickets). The Complainant has further stated that due to the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, he had to extend his leave; while his younger brother had to miss his practical examination, due to delayed return, besides the harassment caused.  He has also alleged that despite seeking information under the RTI Act from the Airport Authority of India and the Administrator, Kingfisher Airlines regarding departure and landing of flight No. IT3183 through which the Complainant had gone to Mumbai, no information has been provided to him. 

                   The Complainant has thus filed the present complaint with a claim that he is entitled for compensation and deficiency in service. The Complainant has claimed Rs.25,557/- spent on re-booking, Rs.4800/- spent on accommodation, Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for harassment, mental tension, sufferings and agony, unfair trade practice, along with interest @18%, besides cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.33,000/-.

                   The Complainant has placed on record all documents relied upon by him in the complaint, to prove his case, along with his detailed affidavit.

2.                After admission of the complaint, notices were sent to the Opposite Parties.

3.                Opposite Party has filed reply by way of affidavit of A. Hamid, Deputy General Manager – Legal.  Vide this affidavit, Opposite Party has submitted that the Complainant had booked tickets of Kingfisher Airlines for travelling from Chandigarh to Mumbai, while the booking from Mumbai to Nanded was with Go Air (Flight No. G8-302). The scheduled departure time of the answering Opposite Party’s flight No. IT-3183 (Changed flight No. IT-3147) from Chandigarh to Mumbai was 3.40 PM and arrival time was 5.50 PM. The scheduled departure time of the Complainant’s go Air flight from Mumbai to Nanded was 7.35 PM.  Opposite Party has further submitted that if any passenger is planning to travel by two different carriers, it is his/her own responsibility to keep sufficient time margin in arrival of the one and departure of the other flight. In the present case, the Complainant had kept only 10 minutes margin to catch the Go Air flight at Mumbai Airport  after arrival of the Opposite Party’s flight.  Opposite Party has also mentioned that at Mumbai Airport, both ‘Kingfisher’ and ‘Go Air’ operate from two separate terminals i.e. Terminal 1A and Terminal 1B respectively. Hence, the Complainant missed his Go Air flight due to his own negligence.  As stated by the Complainant, after landing of the flight the bus took 15 minutes to ferry them to the arrival hall and the Complainant took another 10 minutes to collect their checked-in baggage.

                   Opposite Party  has further submitted that the Exit Gate of Terminal 1A and Entrance of Terminal 1B are not just next to each other and the Complainant was accompanied by two senior citizens; one child and one infant.  In the circumstances, they would have required a minimum transition time of 45 minutes. In addition, they would have taken 15-20 minutes to reach the check-in counter of Go Air. Hence, beyond the time, explained above, the Complainant had only 10 minutes time margin. 

                   Opposite Party has also stated that in view of the poor infrastructure in the Indian Civil Aviation sector, there is heavy traffic congestion at the Indian Airports particularly at Mumbai and Delhi where most of the time the aircrafts keep on hovering over the city for 30-45 minutes awaiting clearance from the Air Traffic Controller (ATC) for landing. The Complainant should have kept sufficient time margin in planning the travel.  Opposite Party has further submitted that the scheduled departure time of their flight was 3.40 PM. However, due to late arrival of the incoming aircraft the flight actually departed at 4.19 PM, thereby causing a delay of 39 minutes in the departure. This delay was only due to air traffic congestion at Mumbai and Delhi Airports and was beyond the control of the Opposite Party.  

                   Opposite Party has further stated that the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) which is the regulatory Authority of Indian Civil Aviation has laid down rules for payment of compensation only if there is delay of 2 hours or more than 2 hours as per block times of the flights (Regulations Annexure RW-II).

                   Opposite Party has also taken the objection that the Complainant has not made Blue sky Worldwide Travels through whom the tickets were booked as a party to the complaint. Even Go Air has not been made a party.  The Complainant and his family members have comfortably availed the services of the Opposite Party against the tickets purchased by them and hence, there is no cause of action in favour of the Complainant against the Opposite Party. Referring to separate paras of the complaint, the Opposite Party has taken similar contentions as given above and, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.    

4.                Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

6.                The grievance of the Complainant is that as the flight of the Opposite Party was delayed from Chandigarh to Mumbai they were not able to catch the connecting Go Air flight from Mumbai to Nanded. As per the Complainant the departure time of the flight from Chandigarh was 3.40 PM and arrival was 5.50 PM. The flight from Mumbai to Nanded was scheduled to depart at 7.35 PM. From the timings given, it is evident that the Complainant had left a margin of only 1 hr. 45 minutes between two flights.

                   A frequent traveler would know that a passenger is required to be present at the check-in counter about 2 hours before the time of departure and the counter of most of the Airlines closes 40-45 minutes before the departure of flight. This is in consonance with the regulations imposed by the Airport Authorities. Also, a frequent flier would know that when terminals of arrival and departure are different, sufficient transit time is required to reach the departure terminal from the arrival terminal by bus or otherwise. A prudent passenger would also plan for the time and delay taken in the landing of the flight which may get delayed due to air traffic congestion, which is beyond the control of the Airlines.  The time for arrival of luggage and collection thereof, is also to be considered.  

7.                The Complainant’s family have taken 10 minutes to collect their luggage and 15 minutes to reach the other terminal. Counting the time, they would have taken in disembarking from the flight from Chandigarh and reaching the counter of Go Airlines after reaching the other terminal at Mumbai, we feel that the Complainant has kept a very tight schedule and not catered for any delay or eventuality at all. They have stated that they reached the Go Air terminal at 19.14 hrs. which is 21 minutes before the departure of flight. The counter was obviously closed by then. There is no proof available on record about the time of reaching the Go Air counter and denial by Go Air for boarding.

                   When such a tight schedule is observed, travellers should be prudent to book the connecting flight from the same airlines, so that due consideration is given to them by the Airline, in case, the earlier fight is delayed.  This is not the situation in the present case. The two flights have been booked through different airlines and the time period taken in transit is too short to leave a comfortable margin in case of delay or unforeseen circumstances, beyond the control of the airlines, who have to follow the Air Traffic Rules. If the Complainant and his family members have missed the flight due to this tight schedule, it cannot be attributed to be deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party.

8.                The flight of the Opposite Party has taken the passengers from Chandigarh to Mumbai and no deficiency in service or harassment by the staff has been alleged. The only allegation of delay has been explained by the Opposite Party.

9.                The allegations by the Complainant, and the liability of Opposite Party in such a situation has been adequately discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as INTERGLOBE AVIATION LIMITED VS. N. SATCHIDANAND, (2011) 7 Supreme Court Cases 463, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: -

“…….Held, where delay is for reasons beyond control of airline, as in this case, due to bad weather and want of clearance from ATC, in the absence of proof of negligence or deficiency in service airline cannot be held responsible for inconvenience caused to passengers on account of the delay – Compensation cannot be granted merely because there was inconvenience or hardship or on grounds of sympathy – What is relevant is whether there was any deficiency in service while providing facilitation/ facilities to passengers who were onboard the flight, but waiting in plane waiting to takeoff on tarmac – If airline and its crew have acted reasonably and in a bona fide manner, airline cannot be made liable to pay damages even if there has been some inconvenience or hardship to a passenger on account of delay.”

                   In the cited case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has further held as under: -

“There is no dispute that in this case, the delay was for reasons beyond the control of the carrier. The guidelines (Rule 19 of the Second Schedule to the Carriage by Air Act) show that the operating air carrier would not be liable to pay compensation to a passenger, in respect of either cancellation or delays attributable to meteorological conditions (weather/ fog etc.) or air traffic control directions/ instructions, which are beyond the control of the air carrier. (Para 44).”

10.              In the present case also a delay has been caused in the flight due to late arrival of Aircraft from Mumbai due to air traffic congestion at Mumbai and Delhi Airport. The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s view is that such delays cannot be attributed to be negligence or want of care or deficiency in service on the part of the airlines. In the instant complaint, apparently, the Complainant and his family members have missed the flight due to their tight schedule, for which Opposite Party cannot be held liable. Furthermore, the compensation claimed by the Complainant for the alleged deficiency in service and the mental agony & harassment caused to the Complainant cannot be given in terms of the cited case.  There is no specific allegation of unfair trade practice in the complaint.

11.              Hence we feel that the allegations of the Complainant regarding delay by the Opposite Party due to which the Complainant and his family members were unable to board a connecting flight cannot be attributed as a fault of the Opposite Party. We accordingly dismiss this complaint. No costs. 

12.              Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

12^th September, 2012.                                    

        Sd/-              

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER