Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/35/2018

R.Prabhakar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lu & Thanasa German Airline Customer Relation centre - Opp.Party(s)

MS.Premalatha

09 Mar 2022

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

  BEFORE :       Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. SUBBIAH                                        PRESIDENT

  Tmt  Dr. S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                         MEMBER

                        

F.A.NO.35/2018

(Against order in CC.NO.55/2013 on the file of the DCDRC, Chengalpattu)

 

DATED THIS THE 9^th DAY OF MARCH 2022        

 

R. Prabhakar

S/o. A.Ramachandran

Plot No.1401, New No.40

A-2, Darshan Apartments, 15^th Main Road                     M/s. N. Premalatha

H-Block, Anna Nagar West                                               Counsel for

Chennai – 600 040                                                         Appellant /Complainant

 

                                                         Vs.

1.       Lufthansa German Airlines

Customer Relation Centre

2^nd Floor CSI Airport, Sahar

Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 099                  

 

2.       Lufthansa German Airlines

Chennai Office

2^nd Floor, Departure Terminal                             M/s. BFS Legal

Meenambakkam, Anna International Airport          Counsel for

Chennai – 6000 027                            Respondents/ 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties

 

          The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Commission had dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the complainant praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.16.11.2017 in CC.No.55/2013.

 

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 29.11.2021, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing on bothside and on perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order:

ORDER

 

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH,  PRESIDENT   

 

1.        This appeal has been filed by the appellant/ complainant as against the order dt.16.11.2017 passed by the District Commission, Chengalpattu, in CC.No.55/2013, in dismissing the complaint.    

2.       The brief facts of the complaint before the District Commission are as follows:

           The complainant had booked his travel from Chennai to San Francisco on 23.5.2012 by Lufthansa German Airlines.  The said travel had to be planned suddenly since the complainant received information that his cousin Arun Jayaraman had been diagnosed for cancer.  The complainant had to fly from Chennai to San Francisco on 3.6.2012 and return from San Francisco to Chennai on 26.6.2012, both the journey was booked on Lufthansa Flight.  The flight reservation was confirmed in Lufthansa LH-759 on 3.6.2012 from Chennai to Frankfurt, Germany and by Lufthansa LH-454 from Frankfurt to San Francisco, USA.  The complainant was allowed to carry two pieces of luggage weighing 23 Kg each, while travelling from India to USA.  Further at the time of boarding at Chennai Airport, the complainant was given an itinerary receipt on behalf of the opposite party, where it was informed that during the return journey the complainant is allowed to carry only one piece of luggage weighing 23 Kg.   The complainant questioned as to how a person travelling with two piece of baggage can be allowed to return to India with one piece of baggage, for which there was no appropriate reply from the opposite party. 

          The complainant had booked the return ticket on 26.6.2012 vide Lufthansa LH-9053 from San Francisco to Frankfurt and by Lufthansa- LH-758 from Frankfurt to Chennai.  While during his stay his cousin’s condition has become worse and he passed away on 21.6.2012 in California.  Due to the sudden bereavement in the family, the complainant had to extend his stay, and rebook his ticket to 16^th July 2012, for which the opposite party had charged extra amount of Rs.809.08 US$ for the change.  The complainant was given to understand that the opposite party would not charge anything extra for change of dates on account of bereavement in the family.  The complainant had got the death certificate of his cousin only on 29.6.2012 and hence the same could not be produced at the time of re-booking the ticket.  Inspite of seeking refund of the amount it was not refunded.  The complainant preponed his journey from  16.7.2012 to 10.7.2012 by Lufthansa LH-9053 from San Francisco to Frankfurt and by Lufthansa LH-758 from Frankfurt to Chennai.  The complainant was allowed to carry one piece of baggage making his entire journey miserable and painful.  The opposite party had miserably failed in servicing the customer and the act amounts not only to deficiency in service but is as well restrictive and an unfair trade practice.  The complainant wrote a letter dt.28.7.2012 to the opposite party to refund the amount charged extra @ Rs.41000/- and to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony.  But the said letter was not responded by the opposite parties.  The complainant had also issued a legal notice on 15.11.2012.  Since it evoked no response, he filed a complaint before the District Commission praying for a direction to the opposite party to refund Rs.41000/- and to pay Rs.5000/- towards baggage claim alongwith compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. 

 

2.       The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties have resisted the claim by way of filing the version as follows:

          This complaint cannot be entertained for lack of jurisdiction. The complainant’s return journey from San Francisco to Frankfurt was a United Airlines.  Article 2.3 of the General Conditions of Carriage (Passenger and Baggage) of the opposite party airline interalia provides that such code share carrier may have certain rules which may be different from Lufthansa rules.  Such rules would be incorporated and form a part of Lufthansa’s conditions of carriage.  Complainant was made aware about the fact that United Airlines permits only one check-in baggage not exceeding 23 Kgs. at the time of booking.  The itinerary receipt issued by Akbar Travels would clearly show this fact.  The complainant was well aware that as on 25.5.2012 itself that he would be allowed to check-in only one piece of baggage during his return journey and that the baggage restrictions are due to the operational and safety reasons, which cannot be compromised at any cost.  The said receipt was handed over to the complainant at the time of check-in at Chennai airport in as much as the receipt clearly shows that it was issued on 25.5.2012.  It is pertinent to note that even as per his own version, the complainant had rescheduled his flight on two occasions i.e., from 26.6.2012 to 16.7.2012 and secondly from 16.7.2012 to 10.7.2012.  The opposite party had charged for only one re-scheduling i.e., US$ 809.88.  The complainant having failed to provide a copy of valid death certificate of his relative, the opposite party airline, upon being informed of the reason of re-scheduling, did not charge any cancellation from 16.7.2012 to 10.7.2012.    The allegation of the complainant is baseless, meritless and misconceived.  Thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

3.       In order to prove the claim on either side, proof affidavits were filed and the documents filed by the complainant were marked as Ex.A1 to A11 and by the opposite parties were marked as Ex.B1 and B2. 

 

4.       The District Commission after analysing the evidence, had passed an order by holding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, dismissed the complaint.  Aggrieved over the said order, this appeal is filed by the complainant praying for allowing the complaint.

 

5.       We have heard the learned counsels appearing on either side, perused the materials placed on record, and passed the following order.

 

6.       The complainant had submitted that he had booked a ticket on 23.5.2012.  At that time no itinerary was issued to him.  The itinerary was issued to the appellant / complainant only alongwith the boarding pass, on the date of travel on 3.6.2012,  and at that time only the complainant came to know that one check-in baggage weighing 23 Kg alone would be allowed to be carried during the travel from Sanfrancisco to Germany.  Had the complainant know the fact at the time of booking the ticket itself, he would not have faced misery in travel.  It is a common knowledge that when a person starting travel with two baggage, cannot be expected to return with one baggage on the same airlines.  Thus the counsel for the complainant would submit that there is a clear deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  But without considering all these aspects, the District Commission had dismissed the complaint. 

7.       Countering the submissions, the learned counsel for the Respondents/ opposite parties submitted that onward journey via Sanfrancisco was operated by the Respondent airlines, whereas the appellant’s return journey from San Francisco to Frankfurt was with a Code Share flight of another airline viz. United Airlines.  In fact in the itinerary receipt it has been clearly stated that for the return journey, passengers would be allowed to carry only 23 Kgs. in one baggage and rest of the luggage are chargeable.  But the United airlines had not been made as a party to the complaint.  Article 2.3 of the General conditions of Carriage (Passenger and Baggage) of the Respondent Airlines clearly states that co-share carriers may have certain rules, which may be different from the Respondent airlines.  Thus the complainant had very well known the fact about the baggage restrictions.  Therefore, there is no question of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

8.       Keeping the submissions in mind, we have carefully gone through the materials placed on record and passed the following order:

 

9.       Though very many contentions raised in the complaint, the main grievance raised before this commission is that the opposite parties have issued itinerary that the complainant is permitted to carry 23 Kgs of two baggage on onward journey, while on return journey he would be allowed to bring only one baggage weighing upto 23 Kgs.  

          The opposite party would contend that the petitioner was made aware of the baggage restriction through the itinerary receipt given by them at the time of booking itself.  But the complainant would contend that the itinerary was given to him only alongwith the boarding pass on the date of journey from Chennai to Sanfrancisco.  Had the itinerary been given to him at the time of booking itself, he would have avoided the problem and would not have faced struggle. 

 

10.     Be it as it may.  The opposite parties are allowing two baggage at 23 Kgs, each but their Code Share viz. United Airlines are having their own set of rules.   In the itinerary receipt it has been clearly set out that one baggage weighing upto 23 kg only would be allowed during the return journeyand the 2^nd item would be chargeable. 

          In this regard it would be appropriate to look Article 2.3 of the General Conditions of Carriage, which reads as

          On some services we have arrangements with other Carriers known as "code shares". This means that even if you have a reservation with us and hold a ticket where our name or Airline Designator Code is indicated as the carrier, another Carrier may operate the aircraft. If such arrangements apply, we or our Authorised Agents will advise you of the carrier operating the aircraft at the time you make a reservation. On some services we have arrangements with other airlines called “franchises”. This means that another Carrier will operate the aircraft on which you will travel using our name, our livery and our Airline Designator Code. If either a code share or a franchise applies to your flight, we or our Authorised Agents will let you know if we or another airline will be operating the flight at the time you make a reservation.

 

          For Code Share services on flights operated by another carrier, LH is responsible for the entirety of the Code Share journey for all obligations to passengers established in these rules. However each Code Share partner has rules with respect to the operation of its own flight, which may differ from LH’s rules for flights operated by Lufthansa.  Accordingly, rules of United Airlines have been specifically incorporated by reference and therefore, form part of Lufthansa’s conditions of carriage and is binding on the appellant. 

          The District Commission had rightly held that the complainant very well knew the fact at the time of booking itself that while returning he will be permitted to carry the luggage of one baggage upto 23 Kg only.  Whereas while going to USA he was permitted to carry two luggage weighing at 23 Kgs. each.  The allegation of the complainant that he had left one luggage in USA itself, which had caused mental agony is totally unsustainable. 

          Likewise the allegation with regard to overcharging of Rs.41000/- towards cancellation of ticket was also rightly held by the District Commission that since the complainant had rescheduled his journey twice, he was not charged for one rescheduling as per rules.  Therefore, looking at any angle, we do not find any infirmity in the findings of the District Commission, which deserves confirmation, accordingly the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

 

11.     In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the District Commission in CC.No.55/2013 dt.16.11.2017.  There is no order as to cost throughout.

 

 

  S.M.LATHAMAHESWARI                                               R. SUBBIAH

               MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDENT

 

 

INDEX : YES / NO

Rsh/dRSJ/ ORDERS