Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/516/2015

Smt. Neerja Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

LUFTHANSA AIRLINES - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. M.S.Ghuman Adv.

03 Apr 2017

ORDER

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

Consumer Complaint  No	:	516 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	15.09.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	03.04.2017

 

 

 

 

1]   Smt.Neerja Sharma, R/o H.No.67, Sector 28-A, Chandigarh.

2]   Col.Avnish Sharma (Retd.), R/o House No.67, Sector 28-A, Chandigarh.                

 

              …………..Complainants

 

VERSUS

 

1]   Lufthansa Airlines (through its Manager), having Office at 12^th Floor, DLF Building No.10, Tower-B, Gurgaon, Haryana 122002.

 

2]   Sahil Travels, Shop No.314, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh.

 

…………… Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SH.RAJAN DEWAN          PRESIDENT

                                MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA           MEMBER

SH.RAVINDER SINGH            MEMBER

           

Argued by  Sh.M.S.Ghuman, counsel for complainant.

Sh.Sandeep Suri, Counsel for OP-1.

Sh.Joy Preet Melu, Counsel for OP-2.  

 

 

RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

         The facts in issue are that the complainants purchased e-tickets of Lufthansa Airlines for travel from New Delhi to New York on 31.7.2015 and back on 12.8.2015 and paid consideration of Rs.2,37,500/- (Ann.C-1) through Sahil Travels, Chandigarh/OP No.2.  It is averred that the complainants commenced their Air Journey Ex-New Delhi to New York via Germany on 31.7.2015 and the return journey was scheduled for 12.8.2015. The complainants specified their meal preference as vegetarian Hindu for Complainant No.1 and Hindu (Non-Vegetarian) for Complainant No.2 for to & fro journey as indicted in e-tickets (Ann.C-2).  It is stated that during the air journey from Germany (Frankfurt) to New York, the complainants were shocked to discover that the meal served by OP No.1 to the complainants was a beef dish contrary to the said preferences indicated in the tickets.  The complainants sensed odd taste on eating beef dish and enquired about the type of meals served to them, to which OP No.1 confirmed that the beef dish was served to them in routine manner without referring to their choice of meals.  It is also stated that the complainants immediately stopped eating the said dish and throughout the journey was having nausea. It is submitted that the complainants are devout Hindus and eating beef is considered to be a sin in Hindu Community. It is also submitted that the service of beef dish not only shook the religious faith of the complainants, but also led to stomach disorder and uncomfortable journey.  The complainants lodged a complaint about this episode with OP No.1 on 3.8.2015 (Ann.C-3).  It is further submitted that on their return journey from New York to Munich (Germany) on 12.8.2015, the OP No.1 again served incorrect meal and the complainants before starting to eat, enquired about the type of dish of meals and the same was again confirmed to be unpreferred dish.  The complainants again lodged complaint with OP No.1 on 15.8.2015 (Ann.C-4). However, nothing has been heard from the side of the OPs. It is submitted that by the said unscrupulous acts of the OPs, the complainants suffered loss and injury on account of deprivation, harassment and mental agony, which amounts to deficiency in service and resorting to unfair trade practice. Hence, this complaint has been filed.

 

2]       The Opposite Party No.1 has filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that this Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint.

         It is stated that when the meal service was being rendered in the flight from Frankfurt to New York, the complainants were asked about their choice to which the complainant NO.1 requested for a vegetarian meal and the complainant NO.2 requested for a non-vegetarian meal.  Accordingly, the complainant No.1 was provided with vegetarian pasta and the complainant No.2 was informed that the non-vegetarian meal comprised of beef pasta.  At this stage, the complainant NO.2 informed the in-flight crew that being a Hindu, he could not consume beef.  It is submitted being aware of the preferences of the complainant, the OP No.1 served them dishes as per their requirements on board.  It is specified that while a beef dish was on the menu, the same was never served to the complainants even as per the complainant’s own showing.  It is submitted that the staff of OP No.2 was shocked to receive the feedbacks from the complainant on 31.7.2015, 6.8.2015 and 15.8.2015 alleging that they had been served beef by the staff and the complainant No.1 tasted the sauce of a beef dish due to which their religious sentiments were hurt.  It is also submitted that after looking into the matter, it revealed that the on-board staff of OP No.1 had directly asked the complainants about their meal preferences and offered them all the dishes being served on-board the flight, which included the beef dish.  It is also submitted that the complainant were only served the dishes that they had requested for in the flight.  However, bearing in mind the sensitivities of the complainants, as a goodwill gesture, and without prejudice, apologized to the complainants for all the inconvenience.  It is further submitted that Asian Vegetarian Option under special meal options would have been the appropriate choice for their preferred meals, which was not booked by the complainants or OP No.2, which is their negligence.  It is pleaded that when OP No.1 realized that the complainant’s grievances were not attributable, as a gesture of goodwill, it offered a sum of 200 Euros to the complainants with a view to maintain customer relations, which was refused by the complainants.  It is also pleaded that any inconvenience faced by a passenger, when the airline staff is acting in a bonafide and reasonable manner, does not give rise to a cause of action in favour of the passenger.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

         The Opposite Party No.2 has also filed reply and stated that it sold e-tickets of Lufthansa Airlines operated by OP No.1 to the complainant and at the time of preparing tickets, the meal preference, as desired by the complainants was mentioned and the same has been accepted to be corrected by them in the complaint.  It is stated that what happened while travelling is not on account of the fault of OP No.2 and it cannot be held liable.  It is also stated that there is no specific allegations against OP No.2, therefore, it cannot be held liable for any deficiency in service. It is submitted that the dispute arose between OP No.1, who has no branch office or Head Office at Chandigarh and OP No.2 is not the branch office of OP No.1 and he is running business of selling air tickets of all airlines and is in no way concerned with the alleged dispute raised by the complainants. Denying rest of the allegations being not relating to it, OP No.2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua it.

 

3]       The complainant also filed rejoinder reiterating contentions as raised in the complaint.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have carefully examined the facts and pleadings along with entire evidence on record.

 

6]       Smt.Neeraj Sharma, the complainant preferred Hindu Vegetarian meal for herself but non-vegetarian for her husband.  During the flight, the complainants were given options and accordingly, as per their choice was arranged meal by the crew of Lufthansa Airlines. The complainants were not forced to eat anything against their will.  There appears to no willful/malafide intention on the part of Airline Staff to offer any such meal which may hurt the sentiments or infringe the liberty/right of a person to eat as per his choice and preference.  The complainants seem to have blown the matter out of proportion. 

 

7]       The Opposite Party No.1 offered the complainants, a courtesy by way of payment of Euro 200/- to compensate them for inconvenience, if any, on board, which was not accepted to by the complainants, but has filed the complaint to get hefty compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on the pretext of redress of their religious sentiments, which does not seem to be bonafide. 

 

8]       The complainants have not come to this Forum with clean hands for redressal of their any genuine grievance.  The complaint transpires to be frivolous and without merit.

 

9]       Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances, as enumerated above herein, the present complaint is dismissed.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

03^rd April, 2017                                                                            

                                       Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER