BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C.No. 408/2003 Filed on 14/10/2003

Dated: 15..03..2011

Complainant:

Prof. P.C. Chacko, Mrunmaya, T.C.9/139, Jawahar Nagar – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. J. Gerald)

Opposite parties:

1. Manager, Air India, Air India Buildings, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021.

    

2. Manager, Air India, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. S. Reghu Kumar)

This O.P having been heard on 14..01..2011, the Forum on 15..03..2011 delivered the following:

ORDER

SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that, complainant had booked a seat in Air India Flight leaving Mumbai for Nairobi at 9.30 A.M on 2/08/2002, that the ticket was Okeyed two months prior to 2/08/2002, that when he went to 1^st opposite party's office on 01/08/2002 to confirm the flight of next day he was informed that all the Air India flights to Nairobi had been cancelled since mid July and he would be booked in a Kenya Airways flight, the next day, that he was asked to go to 1^st opposite party's booking office on 02/08/2002, that when he went there he was told that the Kenyan Airways no longer accepted Air India passengers and he would be sent to Nairobi via Johanasberg in a South African Airlines flight and one seat was booked for him in that flight on 04/08/2002, that the said flight reached Johanasberg at 7.30 A.M, that there he was forced to wait for over 12 hrs as the next flight to Nairobi was only at 7 P.M, that the flight reached Nairobi around mid-night on 04/08/2002, that the Air India Authorities did not provide any boarding or lodging facilities to the complainant from 2/08/2002 to 4/08/2002, that though the Air India flights to Nairobi had been cancelled several days before the date of departure, they did not inform the complainant about the alleged cancellation, that complainant was aged over 70 years, a retired Professor of English and was working as a visiting Professor of Theology in Nairobi, that he was to report for duty on 02/08/2002 in Nairobi, that he reached there only on 5^th August 2002, that due to the deficiency in service of the opposite parties complainant had suffered a lot. Complainant sent notice to opposite parties, but no action was taken by them to redress the grievance of the complainant. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to pay compensation and cost to the complainant.

2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending inter alia that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that passengers are required to re-conform their reservations at least 72 hrs prior to the scheduled departure of their flight, that unless the passenger re-confirms the ticket prior to 72 hrs of the departure of the flight the booking will be cancelled, that complainant who is well aware of the mandatory procedure, that complaint filed on an experimental basis to get undue advantage, that ticket was issued by the opposite parties to the complainant subject to a mandatory condition, that the said procedure was not complied with by the complainant, that eventhough the fault was on the part of the complainant still every effort was taken by the opposite paties to accommodate the complainant in an South African Airlines flight to pursue the journey, that the said act was done as a gesture of goodwill to help the passenger, that the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service as alleged. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. The points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

    

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation and cost?

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 to P8. In rebuttal, 2^nd opposite party has filed affidavit and has marked Ext. D1.

4. Points (i) & (ii): Admittedly, the complainant had booked a seat in opposite party's flight leaving Mumbai for Nairobi at 9.30 a.m on 2..08..2002. It has been the case of the complainant that the ticket issued by the opposite parties for the said journey was okayed prior to 2..08..2002, that when he went to 1^st opposite party's office on 01..08..2002 to confirm the flight of next day he was informed that all the Air India Flights to Nairobi had been cancelled since July and he would be booked in Kenya Airways Flight, the next day, that when he went to 1^st opposite party's office on 2..08..2002, he was told that the Kenyan Airways no longer accepted Air India passengers and he would be sent to Nairobi via Johanasberg in a South African Flight, that opposite party had arranged one seat in South African flight which left at 2.30 a.m on 4..08..2002 which reached Johanasberg at 7.30 a.m where he was to wait for over 12 hours as the next flight reached Nairobi around mid night. It has also been the case of the complainant that opposite parties did not provide any accommodation or food for him nor did opposite parties inform the complainant about the alleged cancellation, though they cancelled flights to Nairobi several days before the date of departure. Complainant's evidence consists of oral testimony of the complainant and Exts. P1 to P8. Ext. P1 is the original invoice dated 19/4/2002 issued by Equatorial Travels Ltd, Nairobi, Kenya in the name of the complainant. Ext. P1 reveals one Ticket on Air India NBO-BOM-TRV-BOM-NBO. Ext. P2 is the print out showing Travel Arrangement in SA Flight. Ext. P3 is the copy of the Advocate notice addressed to 1^st opposite party claiming compensation. Ext. P4 is the postal receipt. Ext. P5 is the acknowledgement card. Exts. P6 & P7 are the postal receipt addressed to 2^nd opposite party and acknowledgement card. Ext. P8 is the reply notice issued by the opposite party. It has been the stance of the opposite parties that the passengers are required to reconfirm their reservations at least 72 hours prior to the scheduled departure of their flight, failing which the booking will be cancelled, and that said procedure was not complied with by the complainant. It has also been contended by the opposite party that even if the ticket was okayed, the complainant was bound to reconfirm the reservation. It has also been contended by the opposite parties that eventhough there was fault on the part of the complainant in complying with the aforesaid procedure, still every effort was taken by opposite parties to accommodate the complainant in South African Airlines flight to pursue the journey. Further it has been contended by the opposite parties that boarding and other facilities will be extended only to a passenger and in the instant case the complainant ceased to be a passenger as he had not reconfirmed his ticket. In his cross examination complainant had deposed that on 31 July 2002 at night he reached Bombay and on being contacted the 1^st opposite party over phone he was informed that all the Nairobi flights were cancelled prior to two months and opposite parties assured arrangement of an alternate flight. Opposite party has been cross examined by the complainant. In his cross examination, DW1 has admitted that complainant had booked the flight in Nairobi for his return journey and the flight to Nairobi on 2..08..2002 was cancelled due to operational reasons. DW1 has further deposed that if the passenger had sought for refund opposite party would have authorised for refund immediately, that if the complainant had approached every other Airlines in person, he would not have got the ticket, hence opposite party have made re-booking on the first available flight, that complainant has not asked for refund. Opposite party has further admitted that they have arranged ticket in South African Airlines; prior to that though opposite party had consulted Kenya Airlines but they did not accept their documents. In his re-examination opposite party has deposed that the complainant had come from Nairobi to Trivandrum and after breaking the journey, after two months, he returned from Trivandrum to Nairobi via Bombay. According to opposite parties breaking journey, means return journeys, which requires re-confirmation, that in one way ticket, if it is from point to point, there is no breaking journey. According to opposite party, the mandatory condition for re-confirmation is that, it should be reconfirmed prior to 72 hours prior to departure. In view of the evidence available on records it is pertinent to point out that opposite party has not denied the contention of the complainant that the ticket was okayed two months prior to 2..08..2002 nor has opposite party denied the ticket purchased by the complainant nor has opposite party denied the submission of the complainant that on 01..08..2002 he was told by opposite parties that all the Air Indian Flights to Nairobi had been cancelled since mid July, thereby it would appear that even if had complainant approached opposite parties two days prior to 2..08..2002, the end result would be same since the Air India flights to Nairobi remained cancelled since mid July 2002. Hence the mandatory condition of reconfirmation of ticket two days prior to 2..08..2002 would become meaningless. In view of the above discussion it is to be noted the Air India flight to Nairobi on 2..08..2002 had already been cancelled, complainant was not informed the same cancellation. Complainant had reached Nairobi only on 4..08..2002 by alternative flight arranged by the opposite party. Reasons for cancellation not substantiated by opposite party with cogent and clinching evidence. No material furnished by opposite parties to show the arrangement of any accommodation or food to complainant. The action of the opposite party not to inform the complainant, of the cancellation of the scheduled flight prior to the date of cancellation and not to arrange any accommodation or food to complainant would amount to deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party which might cause strain and tension to complainant for which opposite party has to compensate complainant which ever fix at Rs. 10,000/-.

In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation within two months from the date of receipt of this Order. Parties are left to bear and suffer their costs.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 15^th day of March, 2011.

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

ad.

C.C.No: 408/2003

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness:

PW1 : Prof. P.C. Chacko

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : The original invoice dated 19/04/2002 issued by Equatorial Travels Ltd., Nairobi, Kenya.

P2 : The print out showing Travel arrangement in SA Flight

P3 : Copy of the advocate notice addressed to 1^st opposite party claiming compensation

P4 : The postal receipt

P5 : The acknowledgement card

P6 : The postal receipt dated 18/1/2003

P7 : The acknowledgement card

P8 : The reply notice issued by the opposite party.

III. Opposite parties' witness:

DW1 : D. Dileep Kumar

IV. Opposite parties' documents:

D1 : Air ticket of the Air India

PRESIDENT