O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT:<br /> <br /> The brief facts of the complaint filed by the complainant against the Ops are, that he had on his business trip to North America traveled in Ops Airlines from Bangalore to Montreal staring from 13/09/2009. That he as a regular passenger of Ops Airlines traveled minimum of 200 times and Ops recognizing his travel conferred status of a ‘Senator’ with extra privileges. On 30/07/2009 he had purchased flight ticket to go to North America from Bangalore. At the time of booking he had expressed his meal request which was not contained in the ticket confirmation report, that he to be served with food of his choice. He had harrowing experience during his journey from Frankfurt to Montreal. At Frankfurt Airport during checking, concerned official Ms. Adler Ardiana initially refused to permit him to carry 3 bags though he was entitle as a Senator to carry 3 bags and one bag was little over to 23 kgs. The officials of Op did not permit him to carry more than 23 kgs though total weight of all the three bags did not exceed the permissible limit and in that issue he was treated differently. Then he asked the official named above to confirm his meal request as it was another leg of his journey who was supposed to confirm but bluntly refused to confirm. The reply of that official led him to unnecessary tension. Then he having had no chance had to stand in the queue and the ticket counter to get out a print of his itenary and had personally confirmed his meal request. Then he conveyed the attitude of the person of Ops by meeting the Flight Manager and in that course he had to wait for 25 long minutes for arrival of that Flight Manager who also did not oblige as expected. That Flight Manager in the course pushed his suit case using his boots which was ultimate result of treating him with a racial connotation which was done intentionally to demoralize him. Then when he reached Montreal he found that one of his bag was missing and made desperate attempts that official of Ops to trace the missing bag. Finally, after more than 26 hours, the bag arrived and in the mean time had to suffer by not getting his toiletries and essential clothing which were in that bag. Therefore was left with no such basic necessity and bag was found damaged beyond repair and had to purchase a new bag at Los Angeles by paying dollar $197.41 and therefore, the complainant attributing deficiency and racial connotation has prayed for awarding damages of Rs.15.00 lakhs for his mental trauma and Rs.9,814/- equivalent $197.41 towards the cost of the suit case purchased and to grant such other reliefs. <br /> <br /> 2. Ops have appeared through their advocate and filed version admitting that the complainant had traveled in their flight on 13/09/2009 from Bangalore to Montreal. They have also admitted that the complainant is confirmed the status of Senator but denied that this complainant had told him about his meals choice and have stated that his meal request was not contained in the ticket confirmation report and that meal request was missing in the ticket. The complainant himself neglected and over looked this aspect and therefore, when the complainant did not inform his meal chance cannot complain against them. Ops have further admitted that complainant was allowed to carry an extra bag as Senator and every other passenger is allowed to carry two bags each weighing not more than 23 kgs and the complainant was permitted to carry extra bag but not exceeding 23 kgs in each bag as per Airlines regulations irrespective of status of the passenger. That one of the bags carried by the complainant was weighing more than 23 kgs therefore as per Airlines regulation, the excess weight in one of the bags was distributed among other bags to bring the weight within the permissible weight of 23 Kgs. The Ops denying any deficiency in that regard have also denied that staff of Ops exhibited in different manner to the complainant. It is further stated that as no request was made for special meal by the complainant and request was made which was too late, the staff was not in a position to oblige. They have also denied that the Manager of the Ops pushed the complainant suitcase using his boots conveying racial connotation with an intention of racial discrimination and stated that allegations of racial discrimination is an imagination of the complainant. Ops have admitted the delay in tracing one of the bags of the complainant have stated that they had accepted their liability for the delay and agreed to reimburse the complainant for the damage and delay in delivering the bag. It is further admitted by them that they agreed to compensate the complainant for the loss or delay in reaching the baggage and even pay the cost of the new bag purchased by the complainant as per the regulations, if the bag cannot be repaired stated that they had conveyed this service to the complainant on 16/10/2010 offering all assistance and denying all other allegations of the complainant denied their liability to pay Rs.15.00 lakhs as claimed and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and Manager (Finance) of Ops have filed their affidavit evidence reiterating what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. Complainant along with the complaint has produced copies of e-mails, copy of letter that the Op had addressed to him on 16/10/2009 and copy of legal notice he got issued to the Ops. Ops have not produced any documents. Counsel for the Op has subjected the complainant to cross examination. We have heard the counsel for both parties and perused the records. <br /> <br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that the Ops have caused deficiency in their service as alleged in the complaint.<br /> 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No.1 : Answered in part affirmatively <br /> Point No.2 : See the final order<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 6. Answer on point No.1: As seen from the complainant allegations and affidavit evidence filed by the complainant, the complainant has come up with 3 types of major allegations against the Ops by calling them as deficient in their service.<br /> 1. The Ops did not arrange to provide meal of his choice.<br /> 2. That the Official of Ops exhibited discrimination, that Flight Manager kicked his bag with his boot leg and caused inconvenience by not allowing him to carry three bags though one of them was little more than 23 kgs and kicking of his bag was with an intention to show racial discrimination to him and<br /> 3. He was made to suffer by delayed delivery of the bag for more than 26 hours and that one of the bags the bag was totally damaged.<br /> <br /> 7. So far as not providing meal of his choice by the Ops concerned, the complainant himself in Para 4 of his complaint admitted that at the time of booking the ticket he had specifically expressed his meal request but admitted it was not contained in the ticket confirmation report sent through e-mail. Thus it is manifest that the complainant did not make meal request recorded in the ticket or confirmation letter except alleging he had expressed it. However, we find that the complainant did not record his meal request by specifying his meal choice. Even subsequently also the complainant has not placed any material in he having had got noted his meal choice to the Air Authorities or the officials of Ops to provide him special meal as desired by him. Therefore, in the absence of getting his request noted or informed the concerned well in advance one can not expect the meal request to be obliged as and when it is conveyed. Therefore, we find no deficiency in the service of the Ops in this regard. <br /> <br /> 8. Coming to the Ops official causing inconvenience to him in carrying three bags, the Ops themselves have admitted that the complainant as a Senator was permitted to carry an extra bag i.e. three bags but have stated irrespective of the status of the passenger as per the regulations one can not carry more than 23 kgs in a bag and the weight of each bag should be 23 kgs and less than that. The complainant himself in Para 5 of his complaint admitted that one bag was little over 23 kgs. Thus what the Ops have done in this regard was they had told the complainant to take out excess weightage from one of the bags and adjust it in the other two bags so that to make all the three bags weighting 23 Kgs and less than 23 kgs. This arrangement got done by the Ops in arranging baggage of the complainant as per the regulations which can not be called as deficient. The complainant who is a regular traveler has not denied this objection raised by the Ops and the arrangements they got done and that they have done this arrangement as per the regulations. The complainant has not denied that what was done by the Ops was done in accordance with the regulations.<br /> <br /> 9. Coming to the allegations of the complainant regarding Flight Manager kicking his bag with a racial connotation is concerned the complainant has alleged as if the Flight Manager pushed his suitcase using his boots which was the ultimate insult to him and it had a racial connotation which was done intentionally to insult and demoralize him. This aspect besides do not come within the purview of this forum as it do not come within the definition of the deficiency in the service. The complainant in this regard has to work out his remedy elsewhere and particularly whether pushing luggage with a boot leg would amounts to racial discrimination is a matter that has to be decided before the appropriate authority or forum for such an act, this forum cannot grant any damages and therefore, we hold that this is beyond the purview of this forum.<br /> <br /> 10. Lastly coming to the grievance of the complainant regarding the delay in getting one of the bags after more than 26 hours, the difficulty and sufferings he has undergone for want of toiletries and essential clothing is concerned, the Ops in their version and also in the affidavit evidence conceded this delay in the complainant getting one of his bags and have regretted for it. Ops have further stated that they had informed the complainant of their willingness to reimburse the loss and cost of the complainant bag and also inconvenience he was put in by not getting his toiletries and under garments and agreed to reimburse to the expenses fully and they would also reimburse the repair charges of the damaged bag or time value if repair is not possible against receipt of purchase. Ops have even referred to had addressed a letter to the complainant on 16/10/2010 and the complainant has produced a copy of that letter addressed by the Ops. In this letter, the Ops have categorically offered apologies for the delay and inconvenience caused and even offered to compensate him for under garments and also damaged bag on production of receipt if the complainant has purchased the new bag? Even in the course of arguments also the counsel representing the Ops submitted that the complainant has produced a receipt for having purchased a new bag for $197.41 and they will reimburse the same. We see that the complainant has purchased a new bag by paying equivalent to Indian Money of Rs.8,490/- which is payable by the Op as agreed by them. The complainant has not claimed the cost of the under garments or toiletries except claiming compensation towards inconvenience and mental trauma. Considering inconvenience caused to the complainant in not getting the basic things because of the delay in getting the bag, we find it just and reasonable to award damages of Rs.5,000/- in addition to cost of the bag. With this, we answer point No.1 in part in the affirmative and pass the following order.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaint is allowed in part. Ops are jointly and severally held as liable to pay Rs.9,814/- towards the cost of the bag and Rs.5,000/- towards inconvenience and mental trauma he has undergone and Ops are directed to pay those amounts within 30 days from the date of this order failing which they shall pay interest @ 10% p.a from the date of this order till the date of payment.<br /> <br /> Ops shall also pay cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer. Got it transcribed and corrected. Pronounced in the Open forum on this the 3rd August 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />