DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,
SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092
C.C. NO. 946/13
Shri Devi Prasad Khandelwal &
Smt. Sarla Khandelwal
R/o B-234, Yojana Vihar
Delhi – 110 092 ….Complainants
Vs.
- Lufthansa
City Office – 12th Floor
DLF Building No. 10 B
New Delhi 110 002
- Chairman, Dr. Frank Christoph.
Deutsche Lufthansa AG
Von-Gablenz-StraA e 2-6
Cologne, D-50679, Germany
- Ms. Vandana Navrekar
Customer Reltions
Lufthansa German Airlines
Department : BOMGG
4th Floor, 402-404, Rangoli Complex
Opp. Air Cargo Complex
Andheri-Sahar Road
Andheri (E), Mumbai ….Opponents
Date of Institution: 07.11.2013
Judgment Reserved for : 05.09.2016
Judgment Passed on : 07.09.2016
CORUM:
Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)
Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)
Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)
Order By : Shri Sukhdev Singh (President)
JUDGEMENT
The complainant Shri Devi Prasad Khandelwal and Smt. Sarla Khandelwal have filed a complaint under Section 12(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter to be referred as Act), against Lufthansa Airlines to award the compensation amounting to Rs. 40,000/- to each complainant for mental agony and harassment, expenditure incurred on medical treatment amounting to Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation charges
2. The facts in brief are that on 17.01.2013, Shri Devi Prasad Khandelwal and Smt. Sarla Khandelwal (complainants) made online booking with Lufthansa Airlines for 29th April 2013 on flight no. LH761 from Delhi to Frankfurt and flight no. LH5426 from Frankfurt to Toronto. While booking, they made a request for providing wheel chair assistance, which was confirmed by their Delhi office that the same will be made available at Delhi, Frankfurt and Toronto.
It is stated that though it was confirmed that the complainant have registered for wheel chair assistance, but they could not provide this promised assistance at Frankfurt airport. Thus, by not providing the promised and assured service, Lufthansa Airways had done a dis-service to the complainant.
It is further stated that his wife suffered for almost 15 days and lost her weight. She was rushed to a local doctor where they had to spend 800 Canadian dollars (approximately Rs. 5,500/-). Shri Devi Prasad Khandelwal also lost weight about 5 kg. This has happened due to non-providing a wheel chair by OPs, which caused them a lot of both mental and health agony. Thus, the complainants have prayed compensation amounting to Rs. 40,000/- to each on account of mental agony and health problems, suffered by them alongwith expenditure incurred on medical treatment amounting to Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses.
3. In the WS, the OPs have taken various pleas such as lack of jurisdiction as no cause of action has arisen under the territorial jurisdiction of this forum; no medical evidence has been filed to show that due to non-availability of wheel chair, the complainants have suffered health problems. It is further stated that there was no office of OPs at Delhi and that being so, this forum was not having jurisdiction. The grievance of the complainants was expeditiously and completely taken care of by the staff of answering respondents. They have no grievances with respect to their journey on the flights. The wheel chairs were provided to the passengers by respective airport authorities and not by airlines. It has further been stated that the complainants were satisfied with the services of OPs as per their letters of dated 22.05.2013 and 18.08.2013. It was only in Frankfurt, the complainants were unfortunately did not get the facility of wheel chair. PNR of the complainants depict that the complainants were capable of taking stairs but cannot walk long distances. Other pleas have also been denied.
The complainants have filed rejoinder to the WS of OP, wherein they has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted their pleas.
4. In support of its complaint, the complainants have not examined themselves.
5. In defence, OP has examined Ms. Sarika Gandhi, AR of OP, who has deposed on affidavit. She has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the WS.
6. We have perused the pleadings, evidence and documents placed on record as both the parties did not appear to argue the matter. From the pleadings and the documents placed on record, the only grievance of the complaints has been that they have not been provided wheel chair assistance at Frankfurt and Toronto airport. The complainants have not appeared and filed their evidence on affidavit in support of their claim.
On the contrary, OPs have examined Ms. Sarika Gandhi, AR of OP who has deposed on affidavit and have taken various pleas such as the forum was not having jurisdiction as no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this forum. Further, they have taken the stand that providing of wheel chair facility was not the duty of the airlines, but of airport authorities.
Further, she has made reference to the letter, written by their official in response to the complaint made by the complainants. The relevant portion of the reply have been detailed in Para 9 of the affidavit of Ms. Sarika Gandhi, which states:
“ Mr. Khandelwal on checking with our ground handling colleagues at Frankfurt airport and as per their records, we have been advised that LH761/29Apr 2013 was scheduled to arrive at 7.15 am local time in Frankfurt at gate B26. On the given day and flight there were 42 passengers with reduced mobility and with wheelchair requests. Our colleagues had received your wheelchair request as well, and hence you and your wife were received at 7.37 am. Our colleagues then transported you and Mrs. Khandelwal at 08.11 am by our shuttle service e-car and were dropped off at security control in area B. At this point you were requested to be seated and advised that the next shuttle will arrive for pick up soon. AT 8.20 am you along with your wife were picked up and taken by the e-car to the connecting flight gate B45 for AC 8763 to Toronto departure 10.00 a.m. Your arrival at B45 for your connecting flight gate B45 was at 8.30 a.m.”.
From the reading of this, it is evident that though there were 42 passengers with the reduced mobility, the complainants were provided shuttle service e-car and dropped for flight to Toronto. Further, it has been deposed in the affidavit that the service code chosen in the PNR indicated that the complainants were capable of taking stairs, but cannot walk long distance. The wheel chair was supposed to be provided from the ramp to the gate.
If a look is made to the complaint of the complainants, in Para 3 of the complaint, they have stated that they cannot walk longer. To quote from the complaint:
“that I am 74 yrs and my wife Sarla Khandelwal is 70 and while I had undergone heart operation recently, besides other ailments: Sarla Khandelwal is a chronic patient of SPONDALITIS & Arthritis. Thus we can not walk longer”
Thus, from this, it is also gathered that though they have made a request for wheel chair but their own version that they cannot walk longer show that they were not disabled passengers. Though, they were not disabled passengers, even then on their request for wheelchair, they were given e-car service by the airlines at Frankfurt airport. Thus, in the absence of any evidence, filed on behalf of the complainants, it cannot be said that there was any deficiency on the part of OPs due to which the complainants have suffered any damage.
On the contrary, the evidence produced on behalf of OPs show that the complainants were not disabled persons who are to be provided the facility of wheel chair, though they registered for the same. Even from the complaint of the complainants, it is also evident that they were not disabled persons but they could not walk longer. This may be due to their advanced stage. Though, OPs have raised the question of jurisdiction also, since the complaint does not survive on its merit, there is no point in going into the question of jurisdiction.
7. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the complainants have failed to prove any deficiency on the part of OPs. That being so, the complaint deserves dismissal and the same is dismissed. There is no order as to cost.
Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(DR. P.N. TIWARI) (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)
Member Member
(SUKHDEV SINGH)
President
