Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

269/2009

S.Karthik - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager Continental Airlines & another - Opp.Party(s)

S.Natarajan

12 Jul 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   11.03.2009

                                                                        Date of Order :   12.07.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M.MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B. M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.NO.269/2009

WEDNESDAY THIS  12^TH    DAY OF JULY 2017

 

S. Karithik,

C-5-2, Gemini Parsn Apartments,

599, Mount Road,

Chennai -6.                                                     .. Complainant

                                        ..Vs..

 

1.  The Manager,

Continental Airlines,

GSA STIC TRAVELS Pvt. Ltd.,

Temple Tower, 672,

Anna Salai Nandanam,

Chennai 35.

 

2. The Manager,

British Airways,

10/11, Dr. Radha Krishnana Salai,

Chennai -2.                                                   .. Opposite parties.  

 

For Complainant counsel           :    M/s. S. Natarajan.      

For 1^st opposite party counsel    :   M/s. D.Krisshna kumar & T. Ravikumar

For 2^nd opposite party counsel    :   M/s. Kochhar & Co.  

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to repay Rs.1,73,930.40 towards the cost of the unused return tickets for travel from Chennai to Pittsburgh with interest and also to pay Rs.98,448/- for the new ticket purchased for travel to Detroit  and also to pay Rs.1,25,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and Rs.3,00,000/-  as damages for mental agony and to pay Rs.89,250/- being the loss of earning and Rs.1,200/- towards travel expense and Rs.15,000/- as cost of the complaint.  

1. The averment of the complaint in brief are as follows:

         The complainant state that he had booked and purchased confirmed roundtrip tickets for travel from Pittsburgh to Meenambakkam from 23.1.2009 to 23.2.2009 and return for  complainant and his wife, and brother Ravinder.   The travel began from Pittsburgh on 23.1.2009 by Continental Airlines and the complainant and his wife, and brother Ravindar reached Chennai on 26.1.2009.    The complainant further state that the complainant and his wife who is 7 months pregnant and brother on 23.2.2009 reached Meenambakkam airport but were denied boarding the 2nd opposite party’s flight.  Though the brother was allowed boarding, enquiries showed that the confirmed return tickets of complainant and his pregnant wife has been cancelled.    The complainant’s original travel schedule was disrupted causing loss of earning amounting to Rs.89,250/- @ 51$ per day.   Accordingly the complainant had to make fresh bookings  for their travel together on 11.3.2009 by Qatar airlines.    As such the act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice  which caused great mental agony and hardship to the complainant.   Hence the compliant.

 

2. The brief averments in the Written Version of  the  1^st opposite party   are as follows:

        The 1^st opposite party state that the opposite party denies all the allegations contained in the complaint except those which are specifically admitted herein and this opposite party puts the complainant to strict proof of each and every allegation.   The complainant purchased confirmed roundtrip ticket from Pittsburgh through his agent Hotwire.com.  for sectors Pittsburg to Newark (Continental Airlines), Newark to Landon (British Airlines), London to Chennai (British Airlines), London to Newark (British Ailines); New York to Pittsburg (American Airlines).   The complainant travelled onwards journey smoothly.  The complainant utilized the Continental tickets from Pittsburgh to Newark without any trouble.   While, return journey tickets were of British Airways on flight No.36 datd 23.2.2009 for Chennai to London & not Continental Airlines.  The British Airways cancelled  2 out of 3 tickets and not continental Airlines.  The continental Airlines has no role with his return flight or cancellation of bookings, hence answering opposite party cannot be held liable for any deficiency in service and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3. The brief averments in the Written Version of  the  2^nd opposite party   are as follows:

     All the allegations contained in the complaint are false, frivolous and unsustainable in law and vehemently denies the same.   The 2^nd opposite party state that the complainant and his wife, were denied boarding on 23^rd February 2009 by the opposite party for the reason that the e-ticket held by them did not show the status s “OPEN” and was showing only as “P”  (Paper Ticket only).   The only reason why the complainant’s brother Ravinder, was allowed boarding is that his ticket had an “OPEN” status.    It is pertinent to mention that the 2^nd  opposite party had clearly informed the complainant at the point of time to get in touch with the continental Airlines which has issued the tickets, through whom the complainant has purchased the tickets as this opposite party cannot amend the status of a flight ticket issued by another carrier.    Therefore the 2^nd opposite party rightly denied them boarding for the reasons stated above.   The 2^nd opposite party further states that the 1^st opposite party had changed the coupons to “P” status at EWR Newark while the complainant and his wife, and brother were coming to India and therefore the complainant ought to have questioned the 1^st opposite party with regard to the same and corrected the status as “OPEN”.  Therefore the 2^nd opposite party being a different entity cannot be made liable for any of the acts committed by the 1^st opposite party.    Hence there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the 2^nd opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.        In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant had filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite parties  filed and no documents marked on the side of the opposite parties  and also oral arguments let in.   

6.   The point for the consideration is:  

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,73,930.40 towards the cost of unused return tickets and a sum of Rs.98,449/- towards new tickets with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. as prayed for ?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.89,250/- towards loss of journey and a sum of Rs.1200/- towards travel expenses to Meenambakkam Airport as prayed for?

 

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and Rs.3,00,000/- towards mental agony with cost of Rs.15,000/- as prayed for ?

 

7.   POINT NO.:- 1

        Heard both sides.  Perused the records.   Admittedly the complainant availed three round trip tickets  by way of journey in different Airway (viz) continental Airways, British Airways and American Airlines from Pittsburgh to Newark – Newrk to London – London to Chennai – Chennai to London, London to New York City – New York City to Pittsburgh.  The learned counsel for the complainant contended that by way of round trip tickets the complainant successfully travelled, from Pittsburgh to Newark by Continental Airways, Newark to London (UK) by British Airways, London  to Chennai by British Airways on  23.1.2009.   The learned counsel for the complainant further contended that while availing the return journey on 23.2.2009 through British Airways as per round trip tickets.  The complainant S.Karthik and his wife were denied the boarding pass for the reason the status as not opened and was showing only as “P” (Paper ticket only).  Hence the Complainant’s brother Ravindar’s  tickets was compelled to cancel.  But on a careful perusal of the entire records it is seen that there is no cancellation of any ticket by Mr. Ravindar.  Equally the complainant and his wife alone obtained a ticket for return journey in Qatar Airways as per Ex.A2.  The learned counsel for the complainant further contended that for the denial of roundtrip tickets a sum of Rs.1,73,930/- and for a new tickets through Qatar Airways a sum of Rs.98,448/- was claimed.   But on calculation for the entire  roundtrip three  tickets the complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,73,930/- only in which all the three persons availed onward journey and Mr. Ravindar availed the return journey also.  The cost of return journey for the complainant and his wife is Rs.38,651/- equilent to 1,136.86 $.  Similarly for a new tickets the complainant and his wife paid only a sum of Rs.98,448/- which is too high;  considering the roundtrip tickets;  such increased fare is only due to the cancelled of tickets  amount to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice committed by the British Airways. 

8.     The learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that as per the roundtrip tickets the complainant duly performed the onward journey. The complainant miserably failed to follow the IATA rules i.e. before 72 hours the ticket related to international airlines shall be confirmed.   But on a careful perusal of Ex.A1 there is no such condition put forth in the ticket on the other hand in Ex.A2 the tickets related to Qatar Airways it is clearly mentioned such condition.   Hence the above said suppressed fact of condition cannot yield any fruit in this case.   The learned counsel for the opposite parties  totally denied the claim of the complainant; that it is the a fault of the complainant;  the boarding pass was not issued, since the status shows “opened”  “P” (Paper ticket).  But the same British Airways permitted the complainant and his wife to travel during onward journey.   Equally the tickets of Ravinder was not cancelled and permitted to travel establish the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the complainant is entitled a sum of Rs.98,448/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this complaint i.e.  (i.e. return journey ticket for the complainant and his wife  Rs.38,651/- and difference of return journey ticket through Qatar Airways is Rs.59,797/- totaling Rs.98448/-)  and the point  is answered accordingly.

9. POINT NO.2:-

        The learned counsel for the complainant contended that due to the delay in returning journey caused  solely by the opposite parties the complainant and his wife sustained pecuniary damage by way of loss of earning.   The complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.89,250/- towards such loss.   But as per Ex.A5  internship training is during the period from 27.10.2008 to 8.7.2009.  which is having no connection with the date of travel since the complainant performed journey only on 23.2.2009 proves that the complainant’s wife has no need to participate the internship programme.   Equally it is very clear from Ex.A5 the internship programme is in an unpaid position.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the complainant is not entitled any amount towards loss of earning and the point is answered accordingly.

10. POINT NO.: -3

        The learned counsel for the complainant contended that due to the sudden denial / cancellation of tickets / boarding pass the pregnant wife of the complainant sustained great mental agony.  The complainant and his wife suffered loss  due to the delay in  performances of the return journey on 11.3.2009.  The complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- towards deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and Rs.3,00,000/- towards mental agony and  a sum of Rs.1200/- towards travel expense and Rs.15,000/- towards cost of the complaint.   But on a careful perusal of the entire records the claim of the complainant towards deficiency of service and unfair trade practice is very high.  Equally the claim towards mental agony is  imaginary against the actual loss.   The

 

learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that the complainant can very well avail the return tickets through the next flight itself, but they wantonly performed their return journey on 11.3.2009 after enjoying the happy days in Chennai.  The claim towards deficiency of service and unfair trade practice is nonest-in-law since due loss was assessed.  Similarly the claim towards mental agony is imaginary.  But it is very clear that sudden cancellation and denial of boarding pass may cause great mental agony to such pregnant woman.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that compensation of Rs.25,000/- is awarded towards unfair trade practice & deficiency of service and  Rs.25,000/- is awarded towards mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- and sum of R.1200/- towards travelling expenses and the point is answered accordingly.

                In  the  result  the  complaint  is  allowed  in  part.  The opposite  parties  1 & 2  are  jointly  and  severally  liable   to pay a  sum  of Rs.98,448/-  (Rupees Ninty Eight thousand four hundred and forty eight only)  with   interest   at   the  rate  of  9%   per annum  from  the  date  of  this  complaint  ( i.e.) from 11.3.2009   to  till  the  date  of  this  order (i.e)  12.07.2017  and also  compensation  of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only)  towards  mental  agony  and  travel  expense  of  Rs.1200/-

(Rupees one thousand and two hundred only) and cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The above  amount shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.       

Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  12^th  day  of  July 2017.  

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1-       -      - Copy of unused return tickets

Ex.A2-       -      - Copy of new tickets.

Ex.A3-       -      - Copy of email.

Ex.A4-       -      - Copy of pregnancy details of wife.

Ex.A5-       -      - Copy of employment details.

 

Opposite parties’ side document: -    .. Nil..

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.