DATE OF FILING : 20.8.2010

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 25^th day of February, 2011

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.182/2010

Between

Complainant : George Mathew,

Karamayil House,

Manacadu P.O.

Thodupuzha,Idukki District.

(By Adv: Shiji Joseph)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Manager,

UAE Exchange,

Sundaram Towers,

No.621 E, 1^st Floor,

Temple Bypass Road,

Thodupuzha, Idukki District.

(By Advs: P. Geeraj & Sony F. Kunnel)

2. The Managing Director,

Go Air Airlines

Ernakulam, Cochin.

(By Advs: K.K. Rajeev Punnapuram

& Jose Thomas)

O R D E R

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)

The complainant is a lawyer by profession, practising in High Court at Ernakulam. For conducting a case at Supreme Court of India, on 6.1.2010, the complainant booked a ticket in the 2^nd opposite party's flight from Cochin to Delhi on 31.12.2009 through the 1^st opposite party and paid an amount of Rs.7,800/- on 31.12.2009. The date of travel was on 6.1.2010. On that evening the complainant was issued boarding pass at the air port and the scheduled time was 7.15 on 6.1.2010. However, the reason known to the 2^nd opposite party, the flight took off at about 9 p.m from CIAL international airport, Cochin and at about 11 p.m it reached at Mumbai international airport. At the Mumbai air port the complainant was asked to board on another flight and the complainant boarded in another flight at about 12.30 p.m. But the flight was cancelled by the 2^nd opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party, at the time of issuing the ticket or at the time of issuing boarding pass, it was not told to the complainant about the possibility of changing or cancelling the flight. The opposite parties never provided any accommodation or alternative arrangements to travel to Delhi from Mumbai Airport. The complainant was for the first time at Mumbai and the opposite party never offered the refund of ticket on that day. This caused untold misery and hardship to the complainant. The complainant with the help of one of his friends, managed to get the money in the night and took a ticket in the King Fisher Airlines flight for Rs.8,000/- and reached

(cont....2)

- 2 -

at Delhi at 9.30. The complainant reached too late and the complainant could not conduct the case properly. This caused mental agony to the complainant and the petition is filed for getting compensation for the tune of Rs.1 lakh.

2. As per the written version filed by the 1^st opposite party who is an employee of M/s UAE Exchange and Financial services Ltd, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. UAE Exchange and Financial Services, Thodupuzha is one of the branches of UAE Exchange and Financial Services and the 1^st opposite party is working as Manager to its Thodupuzha office. Hence the company is a necessary party and this opposite party is not a necessary party to this case. The company to which the opposite party is an employee have only arranged the flight ticket to the complainant. Since the ticket issued by the 2^nd opposite party through the 1^st opposite party to the complainant was valid and confirmed, the complainant have boarded the flight from Cochin International airport through its domestic terminal as per the schedule. This opposite party never offered any services to the complainant. It is admitted that this opposite party arranged a flight ticket for the complainant with the 2^nd opposite party for his travel to Delhi on 6.1.2010 from Cochin. This opposite party is only a service provider of the 2^nd opposite party for arranging flight ticket to those who required as per the contract entered into between UAE Exchange Financial Services Ltd.. The services of this opposite party is limited to the arrangements of valid ticket issued by the 2^nd opposite party on payment of required ticket fare with the 1^st opposite party. This opposite party is not responsible for alleged incidents narrated in the complaint which are out of the control, authority and business sphere of this opposite party.

3. As per the written version filed by the 2^nd opposite party, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this complaint since the alleged cause of action has not arose within the jurisdiction of this Forum but at Mumbai. It is admitted that the 1^st opposite party has issued ticket to the complainant to travel from Cochin to Delhi via Mumbai through connection flight on 6.1.2010. The complainant booked a ticket in flight No.G8-452 on 31.12.2009 to travel from Cochin to Delhi via Mumbai through connection flight on 6.1.2010 by paying an amount of Rs.7,796/- to the 1^st opposite party. The Cochin – Delhi flight is coming from Jammu Kashmir. But the reason of delayed arrival at Cochin was due to bad weather conditions at Jammu Kashmir on that day. Due to this fact the said

flight was delayed in all its stations. This matter was very much informed to the complainant and other passengers well in advance and refreshments were also provided to all at the expense of this opposite party. The complainant was asked to board on another flight since the Cochin - Delhi trip is through connection flight from Mumbai about which the complainant was very well aware of even at the time of booking itself. Due to inclement weather conditions by reason of heavy fog there was no chance to fly from Mumbai Airport to Delhi for any flight on 6.1.2010 at that time and hence the said flight was cancelled. The situation and reason for cancellation was promptly informed to all the passengers including the complainant through public address system and notified in the flight information boards displayed at the said airport which was visible to all the passengers. Such cancellation was due to circumstance and factors beyond the control of this opposite party and thus avoided untoward incident. The security of the passengers is of prime importance to this opposite party. No airlines will operate flight in bad weather conditions by risking the life of the passengers. The complainant boarded another flight to Delhi at about 12.30 a.m is absolutely false. Before boarding the flight at Mumbai Airport to Delhi itself, information regarding cancellation of flight was informed to the complainant and all the passengers well in advance. The connection flight from Mumbai to Delhi was cancelled not due to any reasons or negligence attributable to this opposite party but on the other hand as already submitted above due to the factors and circumstances beyond the control of this opposite party. The flight was

(cont....3)

- 3 -

cancelled not for the profit of the opposite party as alleged and on the other hand this opposite party has only sustained heavy loss in every manner including monetary loss due to cancellation of the flight. The complainant was refunded the full ticket fare of Rs.7,796/- which was credited in the account of 1^st opposite party with office I-D No.RXAPI UAE at Cochin which was accepted by the complainant without any objection or protest. After availing the refund of full ticket fare even though the complainant travelled upto Mumbai enjoying all the facilities and services provided by

this opposite party, the complainant is estopped from filing such a complaint and the present complaint is filed on experimental basis. The cancellation of flight from Mumbai to Delhi was due to unforeseen and extra ordinary circumstances as mentioned above. This opposite party took all measures within their control so as to assist the passengers including the complainant in the attended circumstances. So the complainant is not entitled to any compensation.

4. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?

5. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts. P1 to P3 marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DW1 and Ext. R1 marked on the side of the opposite parties.

6. The POINT :- The complainant examined as PW1. PW1 purchased a ticket of the 2^nd opposite party from the 1^st opposite party for a journey from Cochin to Delhi in the 2^nd opposite party's flight No.68452, the ticket was purchased on 31.12.2009, copy of the same is marked as Ext.P1 and the destination was from Cochin to Delhi on 6.1.2010. PW1 started the journey from Cochin International airport and the legage tagging issued from the airport is marked as Ext.P2. The journey was for conducting a case at Supreme Court on 7.1.2010 and for a conference with the senior advocate there, at the early morning at that day. But the flight arrived at Delhi International Airport at 9.30 a.m in the morning. On the way when the 2^nd opposite party's flight arrived at Mumbai International Airport, PW1 was asked to board on another flight at 12.30 a.m and again it was told that the flight was cancelled. The opposite party after cancelling the flight did not provide any accommodation and alternative arrangement to travel to Delhi, they also not tried to refund the amount of the ticket. This caused mental hardship and agony to the complainant. PW1 arranged money from his friend and booked a ticket in King Fisher Airlines by a payment of Rs.8,000/- and reached at Delhi at 9.30 a.m on 7.1.2010. The boarding pass issued by the King Fisher Airlines is marked as Ext.P3. The right time for the flight from Cochin airport was 7.15, but the flight departed at 9 p.m on 6.1.2010 from Cochin International airport.

As per the 1^st opposite party, they are only an agent to issue the ticket of the 2^nd opposite party and the only duty of the 1^st opposite party is to arrange ticket to the consumers of the 2^nd opposite party. That was done by the 1^st opposite party and when the flight was cancelled, the amount of the ticket was credited in the account of the 1^st opposite party to the complainant after 3 weeks. 2^nd opposite party deposed as DW1. DW1 admitted that a ticket was issued to the complainant to travel from Cochin to Delhi via Mumbai through connection flight on 6.1.2010, by paying an amount of Rs.7,796/-. The Cochin – Delhi flight is coming from Jammu Kashmir. Due to bad weather conditions at Jammu Kashmir on that day, the flight delayed the arrival at Cochin, and so it was delayed in all other stations. It is beyond the control of the opposite parties. This was very much informed to the complainant and other passengers well in advance and refreshment were also provided to all at the expense. At Mumbai Airport, the complainant was asked to board on another flight since the Cochin – Delhi flight is through connection flight from Mumbai about

(cont....4)

- 4 -

which the complainant was very well aware of, even at the time of booking itself. Due to the inclement weather conditions by reason of heavy fog, there was no chance to fly from Mumbai airport to Delhi for any flight on 6.1.2010 at that time and hence the said flight was cancelled. The situation and reason for cancellation was promptly informed to all the passengers including the complainant through public address system and notified in the flight information boards displayed at the said airport which is visible to all the passengers. Such cancellation was due to circumstance and factors beyond the control of this opposite party and thus avoided untoward incident. Security of the passengers is of prime importance to this opposite party. No airline will operate flight in bad weather conditions by risking the life of the passengers. The full amount of the ticket was refunded to the complainant afterwards. Eventhough the complainant enjoyed the travel with full facilities from Cochin to Mumbai. The e-copy of the payment summary and service tax invoice, fare conditions of the opposite party is marked as Ext.R1. As per the 7^th condition stating the cancellation and rescheduling of flight, Go Air will endeavour to operate the flights as per schedule, however, Go Air reserves its right to cancel, reschedule or delay the commencement or continuance of any flight or alter the stopping place or deviate from the route of the journey without thereby incurring any liability in terms of compensation, damages or loss whether direct, indirect, consequential or special or otherwise in any manner whatsoever. In case of any such cancellation or rescheduling of any flight due to any reasons, Go Air does not provide any accommodation or compensation to the affected passengers. So the opposite parties are not liable to refund the ticket amount.

As per the complainant, started the journey to Delhi for conducting a case at Supreme Court, Delhi and also for a conference with the senior advocate in the early morning. But the complainant was not able to participate the conference because of the delay of flight and suffered a lot because the opposite party never arranged any facility in the airport when the flight was cancelled. Even they never arranged another flight for the journey from Mumbai to Delhi. So PW1 himself purchased another ticket of the King Fisher Airlines by arranging money from his friend. But there is no evidence produced by PW1 to show that the journey was for conducting a case at Supreme Court on the very next day and he was not able to participate in the conference with the senior advocate, that happened much hardship to the complainant. But it is evident that the complainant purchased another ticket of King Fisher Airlines for getting connected flight from Mumbai to Delhi. The opposite party never provided any facility at the airport for PW1. As per the opposite party, the flight was cancelled because of bad weather and not even a single flight operated on that day from Mumbai because of bad weather, that was only because of the security of the passengers and not for any other reason. The Delhi flight was coming from Jammu Kashmir and due to bad weather at Jammu Kashmir, the arrival of the flight delayed 2 hours at Cochin and that is caused delay at Mumbai Airport also. But there is no evidence produced by the opposite party to show that due to bad weather they were not able to operate flight from Mumbai to Delhi on that day. There is no evidence to show that even a single flight was not operated on that night from Mumbai International Airport. It is written in the Ext.P1 itself that the complainant is eligible for the refund of the ticket and the complainant received the refund of the money after 3 weeks. So it may be true that the complainant caused some misery and hardship at the Mumbai International Airport because he arranged another ticket for the journey from Mumbai to Delhi in the night, he was quite new in that place, arranged money from his friend for purchasing the ticket and he has to halt at Mumbai Airport without any proper accommodation. It is gross deficiency from the part of the opposite party. Eventhough the flight was cancelled due to bad weather, the opposite party ought to have arranged accommodation and other facilities to the passengers. So we fix a compensation of Rs.5,000/- for the hardship caused to the complainant on that day.

(cont.....5)

- 5 -

Hence the petition allowed. The 2^nd opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for the mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant at Mumbai Airport and Rs.1,500/- as cost of this petition within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the outstanding amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 25^th the day of February, 2011

Sd/-

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT. SHEELA JACOB (MEMBER)

Sd/-

SMT. BINDU SOMAN (MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Deposition :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - George Mathe

On the side of the Opposite Party :

DW1 - Rafeek T.H.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - Air ticket of the opposite party which is purchased by the complainant dated 31.12.2009.

Ext.P2 - The legage tagging issued from the airport.

Ext.P3 - The boarding pass issued by the King Fisher Airlines.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1 - The e-copy of the payment summary and service tax invoice.