Assam

Dibrugarh

CC/18/2014

SRI ASHOK KR. PAREEK - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANAGER, AIR INDIA LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

SRI BADRI PD. AGARWALLA

24 Oct 2017

ORDER

The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is an employee of India Meteorological Department who has been promoted as Scientific Assistant and transferred from Meteorological Office, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi to Aerodrum, Meteorological Office, Mohanbari, Dibrugarh, Assam. The complainant was immediately released from Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi on 09.07.14 afternoon. As the promotion to the post of Scientific Assistant shall come into effect either immediately or from the date of assuming charge to the said promoted post, whichever is later shall be counted as seniority. As such, the complainant without any delay, considering that delay of a date shall cause him great loss of his seniority to the promoted post, booked his ticket by Air India on 10.07.14 from Delhi to Dibrugarh which was to arrive at 11:40AM and the complainant was supposed to join forenoon on 10.07.14. But it was quite unfortunate that the flight was delayed to arrive at Dibrugarh Airport by more or less 1:30 hrs and thereby reached at 13:45 hrs. 1:45 PM. As such, the complainant could not join his service in time to his new promoted assignment on the post of Scientific Assistant at Aerodrum, Meteorological Office, Mohanbari. Due to inordinate delay of arrival of the flight of Air India Ltd at Dibrugarh he could not report before noon i.e. on the same day of release which caused loss of his seniority on the said post. Not only the delay of arrival of the flight lost his seniority as well as caused consequential loss such as allowance and others. The above cause of delay of the flight frustrated and disgusted the complainant in his service and to suffer for an irreparable loss in the whole period of service whereas OP never bothered abut their deficiency of service rather they are concerned to charge high fare abnormally and do not give any importance upon the time of departure and arrival of the flight. The above delay of the flight of 1:30 hrs is acute deficiency in service on the part of OP for which the complainant suffered irreparable loss which cannot be compensated. The plane was  not departed from New Delhi at its due time so it was landed at Dibrugarh lately. The complainant therefore pray to compensate the petitioner at an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- for his loss.

 

      After registering the case, notice was  issued to the OP which was duly received by OP and contested the case by filing written statement. While writing the written statement the OP stated inter alia that the case is not maintainable in law as well as in fact. The OP contended that movement of a flight is very much dependent on various factors like weather, technical clearance of expert of the flight attendance and flight cannot move to its destination unless of requisite clearance is provided to the flight by the ATC/ Technical Support Person. The complainant filed the above case by taking undue advantage of law with the help of false and fabricated facts. Further, it is a matter of surprise that due to reaching after 11:40AM which was schedule reaching time at Dibrugarh has lowered the status and hampered the promotion of the complainant. However, the complainant is put to establish the content in due legal manner with support of documents. Under the circumstances, stated above OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

In this case, complainant gave evidence by swearing affidavit and exhibited as many as 4 (four) documents in support of his case. On other hand, OP has examined one witness as DW-1 without supporting any documentary evidence to rebut the case of the complainant.

Complainant submitted their written argument whereas, OP made no argument to defend the case.

 

DISCUSSION,DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF:

 

Upon going through the evidence, documents and arguments  advanced by both the parties it is found that the complainant who was working at Meteorological Office, Safdarjung Airport in New Delhi in the post of Mechanic Grade-I for last seven years was transferred on promotion as Scientific Assistant to AMO, Mohanbari, Dibrugarh, Assam. It being a promotional transfer Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi, immediately released him on 09.07.14 without any further delay so as to join him on the next day. Ext-2 is the original copy of the letter issued from Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi. The complainant on 09.07.14 purchased the ticket Ext-3 so that he can join in his service in the forenoon of 10.07.14 to get the seniority in the promotional post. Ext-I is the letter of promotion, where it has been mentioned that the promotion of the complainant in the post of Scientific Assistant shall come into effect either immediately or from the date of assuming charge whichever is later. As such, the complainant being conscious of his seniority, without delay attempted to join on the same day which will not cause him any losses in respect of seniority. As per commitment of the OP as mentioned in the Ext-1  flight ticket the plane had to arrive Mohanbari Airport around 11:40, but it was quite unfortunate that the flight was delayed to arrive at Dibrugarh Airport by more or less 1:30 Hrs i.e. 13:45 Hrs and thereby complainant failed to join his new assignment in the post of Scientific Assistant at Mohanbari, which caused him to suffer loss of the seniority forever in the post of Scientific Assistant. The complainant suffered irreparable loss in his whole period of service as well as pecuniary loss. Whereas, OP never bothered and conscious about their deficiency in service for the delay of the flight and thereby committed grave deficiency in service.

 

The complainant in his argument submitted that flight was delayed to arrive at Dibrugarh Airport by more than one and half hour and thereby the complainant reached joining place around 1:45pm which, caused delay in joining his service. Due to the above circumstances the complainant could not join and take charge in time before noon. Rather, he had to report for joining on afternoon at the newly promoted assignment in the post of Scientific Assistant at Mohanbari and thereby he has failed to retain his seniority in the promotional post as per rules and regulations of the Department concerned. He also suffered considerable pecuniary loss including allowance due to loss of seniority. Whereas, OP was not bothered about their deficiency in service and only concerned with the high rate of flight fare. The high handness of the OP and serious deficiency of service specially for their inordinate delay caused the complainant to suffer mental agony and harassment including the consequential loss in the field of service.

 

   So far the above submission of the complainant as to the failor to maintain his seniority in the post of Scientific Assistant due to delay of the arrival of the flight, and in consequence loss in his service carried forever and had to bear the pecuniary loss has to be proved by the complainant which he failed. The complainant has to prove by providing rules and regulation of the Department concerned that has lost his seniority as well as consequential reliefs. The complainant has failed to produce any documentary evidence regarding rules and regulation of Department concerned to show that the complainant has lost his seniority as well as irreparable pecuniary loss due to delay of flight. By oral  evidence of the complainant will not serve the purpose that he lost his seniority by joining in the service after 1:45 Hrs. The complainant has to support either by documentary or by oral evidence to prove the claim of the complainant.

 

   From the evidence of the parties it appears that the flight was delayed  at the initiation at New Delhi itself. However, the movement of the flight is very much dependent on various factors which cannot be disclosed pin pointedly. Delay may be due to operational reason which has not been explained. At the initial stage at Delhi Airport due to operational reason the technical expert did not give signal to take off the flight for which it was delayed. In this connection it is to be kept in mind that airlines achieved nothing by making delay without valid reason. The terms operational reason is commonly mentioned to include the different reason for which a flight may be cancelled or may fly lately. There may also be various reason for delay of flight which may not be disclosed pin pointedly. Simply because the airline did not disclose the reason for delay it cannot be held responsible on the OP as deficiency in service. Further, it cannot automatically conclude that the delay of the flight  was not genuine. However, any mechanical snag of the plane is a decision taken by the technical staff of the airline bearing in the mind  the safety of all  passenger and the plane. The plane cannot take off simply thinking of a particular person as such, in our considered opinion the delay of the flight considering the mechanical snag of the plane cannot be said to be illogical and motivated decision. It is settled principle of law that there is no jurisdiction at all in law for the Forum to direct payment of any amount to the  complainant for loss of time and inconvenience. The flight may get delayed due to various causes such as poor visibility in the airfield, bad weather, birds hit, tyre  burst while landing or take off, sudden strike by any crucial section or airline staff etc all of which may be factors beyond the control of the airlines. In such a case delay cannot ordinarily be attributed to negligence on the part of the airlines. There may however, be other instances where the delay of operating a flight might have been caused by reason of negligence on the part of the airline staff. The Act  provide jurisdiction U/s.14 (d) of the Act to award compensation to the consumer only for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the OP. However, to proof of that there was negligence and that it has caused with a view of loss or injury the award of compensation under this provision may be allowed. If there is no such proof of negligence of the OP the compensation cannot be legally be awarded. In the present case in hand complainant has failed to prove the negligence of the OP to held liable for deficiency in service.

 

     In view of the above it has been established beyond doubt that the complainant failed to prove the negligence on the part of OP as such, we  are disinclined to accept that delay of the aircraft was a malafide intention to cause delay and thereby committed serious deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Accordingly, in view of the above circumstances, as has been divulged in the case in hand we hold that the complainant measurably failed to prove his claim because delay of the flight of one and half hour cannot be said to be unreasonable and malafide.

     In view of our above discussion we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove the case. Hence, the case is dismissed devoid of merit.