Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

252/2010

L.Narayanan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director, Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. & others - Opp.Party(s)

S.K.Sambuvarayan

02 Jan 2019

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 03.06.2010

                                                                          Date of Order : 02.01.2019

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 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

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP., : MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.252/2010

DATED THIS WEDNESDAY THE 02^ND DAY OF JANUARY 2019

Mr. L. Narayanan,

S/o. Mr. V.L. Narasimhan,

No.6/33, Patel Street,

Nehru Nagar

Chromepet,

Chennai – 600 044.                                                      .. Complainant.                                                      

 

                                                                                           ..Versus..

 

1. The Managing Director,

Kingfisher Airlines Limited,

Registered Office 12^th Floor UB Tower,

UB City #:24 Vital Mallya Road,

Bangalore – 1.

 

2. The Chief Executive Officer,

Kingfisher Airlines Limited,

Head Office Kingfisher House,

Western Express Highway,

Vile Parle (E),

Mumbai – 99.

 

3. The Manager,

Kingfisher Airlines Limited,

No.18/3, Raja Annamalai Buildings,

Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai,

Egmore,

Chennai – 8.                                                             ..  Opposite parties.

          

Counsel for complainant        :  M/s. S.K. Sambuvarayan & another

Counsel for opposite parties :  Mr. V. Manohar

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- being the cost of flight and to pay a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, deficiency in service  and pain with cost of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant.

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

The complainant submits that he booked an air ticket on 17.03.2009 from Hyderabad to Chennai in Kingfisher Class Air lines.  The complainant also boarded the flight after due security checkup.  But to his shock and surprise, the complainant boarded the flight was not King fisher class but kingfisher red.  None of the staffs or Aircraft authorities has informed anything about the change of flight.  The complainant submits that evenafter boarding the flight, the temperature inside the aircraft was much higher than outside.  The A/c unit is not functioning properly caused great inconvenience, suffocation etc to the complainant.  Several passengers like the complainant shouted and contacted the Airhostess, the captain etc ended in vain.  Similarly, the complainant and other co-passengers have not been provided supper.   The act of the opposite parties to change the aircraft from Kingfisher class to Kingfisher red without intimation and concurrence from the complainant had put the complainant to massive stress, shock and surprise of very great magnitude.  All this had put the complainant to greater stress and trauma besides causing mental agony and pain.  Hence, this complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite parties is as follows:

The opposite parties specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.  The opposite parties state that at the time of issuing boarding pass and security check, the complainant was duly informed about the down grade of flight from Kingfisher class to Kingfisher Red due to change of aircraft and the same was accepted by the complainant which can be ascertained from the PNR details.   The opposite parties state that the complainant without verifying the PNR details raising such allegations of deficiency and unfair trade practice.  The opposite parties state that the allegation of failure in A/c provision and non supply of dinner etc cannot be considered even for a single moment.   The opposite parties state that there is no basis for such huge claim of compensation.  The complainant and other passengers travelled the flight and availed the service and claiming the cost of the ticket itself proves the vindictive nature of the complainant.  The ticket itself shows that the amount cannot be refunded.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as her evidence and documents Ex.A1 & Ex.A2 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties 1 to 3 is filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 is marked on the side of the opposite parties 1 to 3.     

4.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant entitled to get refund of a sum of Rs.4,000/- paid towards the cost of the ticket as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant entitled to a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, unfair trade practice, deficiency in service etc with cost of Rs.25,000/- as prayed for?

5.      On point:-

The complainant has not filed any written arguments. The opposite party filed their written arguments.  Heard the complainant.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.   The complainant pleaded and contended that she booked an air ticket on 17.03.2009 from Hyderabad to Chennai in Kingfisher Class Air lines.  The complainant also boarded the flight after due security checkup.  But to her shock and surprise, the complainant boarded the flight was not King fisher but kingfisher red.  None of the staffs or Aircraft authorities has informed anything about the change of flight.  The act of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice.  But on a careful perusal of records Ex.B1, it is seen that four persons reserved seats through clear trip travel services Private Limited.  There is nothing about King Fisher class or Kingfisher Red flight details.  But in Ex.A2, E-Ticket shows clear trip ticket from Chennai to Hyderabad.   But there is nothing about neither the King fisher class nor Kingfisher Red.  In this case, the complainant filed a copy of ticket  showing King Fisher Class from Hyderabad to Chennai etc. Contains no other passengers.   But on a careful perusal of records, the complainant has not produced any document to prove that she has availed tickets in Kingfisher class Fight and travelled.  But Ex.A2 shows that she has availed tickets in Indigo Flight.  Further the contention of the complainant is that evenafter boarding the flight, the temperature inside the aircraft was much higher than outside.  The A/c unit is not functioning properly caused great inconvenience, suffocation etc.  Several passengers like the complainant shouted and contacted the Airhostess, the captain etc ended in vain.  Similarly, the complainant and other co-passengers have not been provided supper.   Thereby, the opposite parties committed deficiency in service.   But on a careful perusal of records, there is no document to prove the mandatory provision of supper.  Equally,  the non functioning of a/c unit is due to technical snag is proved from Ex.B3 & Ex.B4.  The complainant is claiming refund of a sum of Rs.4,000/- paid towards the cost of the ticket and a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- claimed under different heads namely mental agony, unfair trade practice, deficiency in service etc without any basis.

6.     The contention of the opposite parties is that at the time of  issuing boarding pass and security check, the complainant was duly informed about the down grade of flight from Kingfisher class to Kingfisher Red due to change of aircraft and the same was accepted by the complainant which can be ascertained from the PNR details as per Ex.B1.   Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant without verifying the PNR details raising such allegations of deficiency and unfair trade practice cannot be acceptable.  Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the allegation of failure in A/c provision and non supply of dinner etc cannot be considered even for a single moment.   On a careful perusal of records from Ex.B2 to Ex.B3, it is very clear that the Government has approved the flight and minimum equipment list etc can have the passengers with one functional unit of A/c.  Due to the technical snag related to default of one A/c it need not to be cancelled.  The complainant and other co-passengers raised slogans unnecessary sounds etc in the flight itself is a bad practice.  Further the contention of the opposite parties is that there is no basis for such huge claim of compensation.   The complainant and other passengers travelled the flight and availed the service and claiming the cost of the ticket itself proves the vindictive nature of the complainant.  The ticket itself shows that the amount cannot be refunded.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that this complaint has to be dismissed.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.    No costs.       

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 02^nd day of January 2019. 

 

MEMBER-I                           MEMBER-II                     PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1		Copy of emails sent to the opposite parties
Ex.A2	05.03.2009	Copy of e-ticket booked by the complainant

 

OPPOSITE  PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.B1	27.01.2009	Copy of letter from Civil Aviation Dept. to the opposite party approving Minimum Equipment List
Ex.B2		Copy of minimum Equipment List & Configuration Deviation List
Ex.B3	17.03.2009	Copy of Crew handover sheet

 

 

MEMBER-I                           MEMBER-II                     PRESIDENT