BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

SRI.  P.V. JAYARAJAN                               : PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                           : MEMBER

SRI. VIJU  V.R.                                             : MEMBER

C.C.No. 164/2016  Filed on 01/04/2016

ORDER DATED: 19/11/2024

ORDER

SRI.P.V. JAYARAJAN, PRESIDENT:

This is a complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and the matter stood over to this date for consideration.  After hearing the matter the commission passed an order as follows:

2. This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.After admitting the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party.The opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the allegation raised by the complainant.

3. The case of the complainant in short is that the complainant booked flight tickets for her journey from Trivandrum to Jaipur via Mumbai.The travel schedule was to board Air India flight from Trivandrum to Mumbai at 12:50 hrs. on 16/10/2015 and thereafter from Mumbai by Indigo Flight scheduled at 17:55 hrs. to Jaipur.When the complainant reached Trivandrum airport for check-in, some of co-travelers of the complainant had informed that the Air India flight in which the complainant has to board will take off only after 3 hrs. from the scheduled time.When the complainant enquired with the opposite party, it was informed that the Indigo flight from Mumbai to Jaipur is the connection flight of the Air India flight and made to believe the complainant that the Indigo flight from Mumbai to Jaipur would depart only after the arrival of Air India flight at Mumbai.But on reaching Mumbai, the Indigo flight to Jaipur was already departed and the complainant has to travel to Jaipur from Mumbai in another flight by paying Rs.7,363/- towardstickets charges.Though the complainant try to contact the office of the opposite party at Trivandrum, none of the phone calls were attended by the opposite party and hence there was no option available for the complainant other than to arrange another flight ticket to Jaipur.According to the complainant, the complainant has suffered mental agony and financial loss due to the act of the opposite party.Hence alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, the complainant approached this Commission for redressing her grievances.

4. The opposite party filed written version admitting that the complainant purchased two tickets through M/s.Riya Travels for travel from Trivandrum to Jaipur via Mumbai.It was also admitted the scheduled departure time of Air India flight Trivandrum was at 12:50 hrs.The contention of the opposite party is that the flight was rescheduled for operation at 13:45 hrs. on 16^th October 2015 due to cockpit crew constraints.The opposite party further submitted that this rescheduling of the flight was informed to the complainant through SMS on 15/10/2015 at 21:34 hrs.The opposite party further submits that the flight was again rescheduled at 12:13 hrs. due to heavy congestion at Mumbai airport and the revised estimated time of the departure was 14:15 hrs. and this massage was displayed at airport display board and the repeated announcements were made to inform passengers of this delay.According to the opposite party they have also served refreshments to all the passengers of the delayed flight including the complainant.The opposite party further contended that as per the conditions of the contract the opposite party’s liability is only to the extent of providing transportation of ticketed itinerary of opposite party’s air lines and the opposite party will not be liable for any consequential losses due to any misconnection by other airlines.The opposite party further submitted that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to the dismissed.

5. Evidence in this case consists of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P6 from the side of the complainant, DW1 and Ext.D1 from the side of the opposite party.

6. Issues to be considered:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the

     part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the complainant is entitle to the relief claimed in the complaint?
3. Order as to cost?

7. Heard both sides. Perused affidavits, documents and connected records.  To substantiate the case of the complainant, the complainant’s power of attorney sworn an affidavit as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked.  Ext.P1 is the power of attorney dated 07/02/2018.  Ext.P2 is the copy of the electronic air ticket from Trivandrum to Jaipur via Mumbai.  Ext.P3 is the copy of the boarding pass of Air India flight.  Ext.P4 is the copy of the boarding pass of Indigo flight.  Ext.P5 is the statement of cash receipt.  Ext.P6 is the copy of the lawyer’s notice dated 01/12/2015.  The opposite party filed affidavit and marked Ext.D1 document.  Ext.P2 i.e. the copy of the flight ticket proves that the complainant booked tickets for the 12:50 hrs. flight on 16/10/2015 and the said Air India flight is scheduled to arrive Mumbai at 14:50 hrs.  It also gives the details of the onward journey from Mumbai to Jaipur which is scheduled to depart at 17:55 hrs. from Mumbai and arrives at 19:45 hrs. at Jaipur.  So according to the complainant there was a gap of 3 hrs. at Mumbai airport if the Air India flight reaches Mumbai at the scheduled time.  Ext.P4 and P5 proves that the complainant has arranged a flight ticket from Mumbai to Jaipur by paying Rs.7,363/- which was scheduled to departure from Mumbai at 19:15 hrs.  The case of the complainant is that they have booked ticket on the assurance from the opposite party Air India that they have arranged the onward ticket from Mumbai also along with Trivandrum to Mumbai ticket.  According to the complainant by the time the flight reached Mumbai airport, the flight for onward journey to Jaipur was already departed from Mumbai airport.  Hence according to the complainant, the act of the opposite party resulted in mental agony and financial loss to the complainant.  The opposite party through their written version contended that the rescheduling of the flight was necessitated due to the cockpit crew constraints.  The opposite party admitted that the Air India flight to Mumbai which is scheduled to start from Trivandrum at 12:50 hrs. was rescheduled and the said flight take off from Trivandrum airport only at 14:15 hrs.  According to the opposite party the information regarding rescheduling of the flight was informed to all the passengers through SMS and to substantiate that aspect, the opposite party produced a copy of the SMS message addressed to the complaint’s mobile number.  As per the regulation, there are some extra ordinary circumstances under which the airlines companies are permitted to reschedule the timing of the respective flights.  Force majeure circumstances are considered to be exceptional circumstances where the service operators can reschedule the flights.  The various reasons mentioned includes climatic conditions, labour unrest, insolvency, business exigencies, government decisions, regarding operational and technical issues, route and flight cancellation etc.  Now the question to be considered is whether the reason mentioned by the opposite party can be considered as exceptional circumstances.  The opposite parties contention is that the flight was rescheduled due to cockpit crew constraints.  That means the opposite party could not arrange required crews for operating the flight from Trivandrum to Mumbai.  When the opposite party collects tickets charges and offers the service of transport, it is the duty of the opposite party to see that required crew members are available for operating the flight.  Here in this case the opposite party has got no case that there was any labour unrest due to which the flight could not be operated in time.  Hence assuring the availability of required crew members at the scheduled time of departure is a mandatory duty cast up on the opposite party, which was not complied by the opposite party in this case.  The non-availability of crew members at the time of scheduled departure of the flight cannot be termed as a Force Majeure factor as mentioned in the regulations.  Hence the act of the opposite party in not arranging required crew members for the operation of the flight itself amounts to deficiency in service and the reason stated by the opposite party cannot be equated with any of the extra ordinary circumstances which leads to rescheduling of a flight.  The complainant has proved that she has suffered mental agony and financial loss due to the act of the opposite party.  It is true that the opposite party has produced a copy of SMS massage before this Commission and marked as Ext.D1.  The contention of the opposite party is that the rescheduling of the flight was informed to the complainant and other passengers sufficiently in advance and hence there is no deficiency.  It is to be noted that simply because the information was passed to the passengers regarding the rescheduling of the flight will not exonerate the opposite party from their liability.  From the available evidence, it is evident that the complainant has suffered mental agony and financial loss due to the act of the opposite party.  By swearing an affidavit as PW1 by the power of attorney holder of the complainant and by marking Exts.P1 to P6 documents, we find that the complainant has succeeded in establishing her case against the opposite party.  On the basis of the evidence available before this Commission, we find that the act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.  As the mental agony and financial loss to the complainant was caused due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, we find that the opposite party is liable to compensate the loss sustained by the complainant.  In view of the above discussions, we find that this is a fit case to be allowed in favour of the complainant.                              

 In the result the complaint is allowed.  The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) as compensation along with Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) being the cost of this proceedings to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount except cost shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of realization.

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 Court, this the 19^th day of November,  2024.

C.C. No. 164/2016

APPENDIX

1. COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

2. COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

3. OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

4. OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                                                                                                                            Sd/-