This is an appeal filed by the appellant/OPs against the order, dated 26.9.2011 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as District Forum only) in complaint case No. 603 of 2010 vide which, it allowed the complaint in the following manner;

‘From the above detailed analysis of the entire case, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint must succeed. So, we accept the complaint and decide the same in favour of the Complainant and against the OPs. The OPs are directed to issue a complementary return ticket to the Complainant [as agreed], on any domestic flights operated by them. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.30,000/- to the Complainant, jointly and severally, towards compensation for physical harassment, as well as mental agony caused to her, along with Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation. This order be complied with by the OPs, within one month, from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which, they shall pay the awarded amount along with penal interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 04.10.2010, till the date of realization, apart from cost of litigation i.e. Rs.10,000/-.

2.                    Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the complainant booked Air ticket for Bidar via Hyderabad of Kingfisher Airlines in flight No.IT-802 dated 30.5.2010 through Airpak Travels Chandigarh, which was scheduled to take off at 0925 from Delhi and was to arrive at Hyderabad at 1135 hrs. She also booked the return ticket of 3rd June, 2010 from Hyderabad to Delhi and Delhi to Chandigarh in flight No.9W2258 & 9W 733 of Jet Airlines consecutively. It was stated that at the Airport the OPs issued boarding pass to all her male colleagues but she was denied the issuance of boarding pass.  The complainant made request to the OPs to issue her the boarding pass but to no effect and the flight took off. It was further stated that, ultimately, the boarding pass of another Airlines i.e. Spice Jet, was issued, which was scheduled to depart in the late hours at 1545 hrs and was to arrive at Hyderabad at 1800 hrs. She was given in writing that the car would be provided by Hyderabad Airport Authority for Bidar. It was further stated that the Airport authority provided her a taxi but the driver of the said car took her to a wrong direction and took 6 hours to reach the destination which caused a lot of fear and insecurity to her. The complainant wrote a letter, to this effect, to the Kingfisher Airlines and they regretted the inconvenience. They offered the complainant complimentary return ticket on Kingfisher Airlines which could be used for any of their flights on domestic route. Despite harrowing experience, the complainant did not want to drag the matter further and made an offer to the Airlines, if it offered a package of 3 people (me, husband and son) for a week to any destination, in India, then it could be considered. But the same was not considered by the OPs. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the OPs, amounted to deficiency, in service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint was filed.

3.        Reply was filed by the OPs, wherein, it was stated that the complainant availed of the services of the OPs against consideration paid by her. It was further stated that the complainant was intimated regarding the delay of flight and when she reported for check in, all seats on the said flight were released and she could not be accommodated.  However, the complainant was provided seat in Spice Jet Flight. She was also provided surface transport from Hyderabad to Bidar with driver who was well aware of the route. It was admitted that  e-mail from the complainant regarding her grievance was received, and as a gesture of goodwill she was offered complimentary tickets, which were refused by her. It was further stated that as per DGCA guidelines, Airlines are permitted to overbook the flights by a few seats and, as such, boarding is granted on first come first served basis. Hence the complainant was denied boarding due to overbooking which is a common practice, followed by most of the Airlines. All other allegations, levelled by the complainant, in the complaint, were denied. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of the OPs nor they indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.        The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.        The learned District Forum, allowed the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of this order.  

6.        Aggrieved by the order, passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/OPs, has filed the instant appeal. 

7.        We have heard Sh. Y.S. Dhillon, Advocate for the appellant/OPs and, have perused the record, carefully.

8.        The learned Counsel for the appellant/OP contended that as per the guidelines issued by the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) the Airlines are permitted to overbook the flight by a few seats and in the present case due to the non-availability of the seat the complainant could not be accommodated in the same flight but even then an alternative arrangement was made for her by the OPs. He further submitted that the District Forum while allowing the complaint failed to appreciate this fact. Not only this, as a goodwill gesture free taxi service was provided to the complainant for onward journey from Hydrabad to Bidar. Moreover, a complementary ticket was offered to the complainant. It was further contended that the appellant had accommodated the respondent in all possible manner, but the District Forum did not take this fact into consideration. It was further contended that there was no deficiency in rendering service on the part of the OPs.

9.        Admittedly, the OPs, overbooked the tickets and due to this reason, the complainant could not board the said flight, in spite of her confirmed ticket. Owing to this reason, the complainant had to reschedule her journey and had to go through a lot of mental agony and physical harassment. Although the appellant helped her to get a seat in the next flight in another Airlines but she did not accept that offer, as the said flight was to reach the destination in late hours.  The journey of the complainant was delayed and she suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental harassment and mental agony, which tantamounted to deficiency in service. Moreover, offering a complementary ticket to the complainant by the appellant/OP, proved that they admitted their deficient act and that was why, to cover up their lapse, they offered her complementary ticket. The complainant rightly refused the complimentary ticket because after happening all this, she could not dare travel alone in the flight of the OP/appellant.  Therefore, 
in view of the inconvenience and harassment caused to the complainant due to the deficient service of the OPs, we are of the opinion, that certainly the complaint was entitled to compensation. Thus, the order of the District Forum is legal and valid. It does not suffer from any illegality.

10.            For the reasons stated above, we have come to the conclusion that there is no merit in this appeal and the same should not be admitted for regular hearing, as it would cause further harassment to the complainant/respondent who will have to engage a Counsel for pursuing her case in appeal apart from wastage of her valuable time. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine, with no order as to costs.

11.            Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.