BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.<br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> O.P.No. 99/2005 Filed on 19.03.2005<br /> Dated : 30.06.2008<br /> <br /> Complainant:<br /> Deborah Markam, permanently residing at Flat 15, Trafalgar Quarters, Park Road, Greenwich, London, U.K, SEIO 9NL and now working and residing at the Gurukul, Madathil Lane, Mukkolakkal, Kallayam P.O, Thiruvananthapuram. <br /> <br /> (By adv. K.K. Rajeev Punnapuram)<br /> <br /> Opposite parties:<br /> <br /> 1.M/s Jet Airways India Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Managing Director, Jet Air House, 13 CommunityCentre, Yusafsari, Delhi.<br /> <br /> 2.M/s Jet Airways India Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Manager, S.M. Centre, Andheri – Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai – 49. <br /> <br /> 3.M/s Jet Airways India Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Manager, Sasthamangalam, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> <br /> (By adv. A. Abdul Kharim)<br /> <br /> This O.P having been heard on 14.05.2008, the Forum on 30.06.2008 delivered the following:<br /> <br /> ORDER <br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT<br /> The fact giving rise to the complaint is that the complainant purchased an air ticket bearing No. 589 4273801307 6 through an agency by paying an amount of Rs. 16400/- to travel through the 1st opposite party airways scheduled to leave Delhi on 2nd January 2005 via at 8 a.m and to reach Thiruvananthapuram at 12.30 p.m on the same day. Opposite parties' flight delayed to take off by 4 hours due to the reasons best known to them. The complainant along with other passengers were asked to wait for more than four hours at Delhi airport which was unwarranted and which put the complainant to agony and anguish from the very inception of her journey. When the complainant finally boarded the aircraft, after sometime of its take off, the flight authorities informed the complainant and other passengers that the connecting flight from Bombay to Thiruvananthapuram has taken off and that they will be taken to Cochin by another flight and from Cochin they will have to travel on land to Thiruvananthapuram. The complainant reached Bombay in the delayed flight of opposite parties at 3 p.m and she was quickly put on to the Cochin flight. Since the complainant was travelling to India as well as to Kerala for the first time, she requested the authorities concerned of the 2nd opposite party to put her in the next available direct flight to Thiruvananthapuram. But her request fell in deaf ears. Opposite parties did not make any announcements at Thiruvananthapuram airport regarding the shifting of passengers from the delayed flight to the Cochin flight. The employer of the complainant waited to receive her at the Thiruvananthapuram airport for a very long time. Due to the delay the employer of the complainant was also put to mental strain. The complainant reached Cochin at about 5 p.m on the same day from where complainant was put in a substandard bus by the authorities of the opposite parties at Cochin to reach Thiruvananthapuram. Moreover the said bus broke down on the way to Thiruvananthapuram. Due to the above the complainant was put to severe tension and other discomfort. At Thiruvananthapuram complainant stayed on Comfort Inn at M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram. The aforesaid hardships were occasioned to the complainant due to the utter deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties. The opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant. Hence this complaint claiming Rs. 300000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1617/- towards the costs of stay in Comfort Inn and other cost of the proceedings. <br /> Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The alleged grievance is absolutely baseless. The flight was delayed due to inclement weather by reason of heavy fog conditions at Delhi. The situation and reasons for the delay was promptly informed to the passengers by repeated announcements at Delhi Airport and they were also informed of the available options and alternate arrangement of flights. The decision to delay the operation of the flight was due to reasons of safety. The passengers were given two options by opposite parties ie; to travel to Cochin on the same day itself via Mumbai or alternatively, to travel to Thiruvananthapuram on the next day wherein hotel accommodation would be provided by the opposite parties. All the passengers availed either of the options without any objection. The flight was delayed not because of any fault, lapse or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, but due to inclement weather conditions which was beyond the control of opposite parties. The matter was also informed to the Enquiry Counter at Thiruvananthapuram to avoid any inconvenience. It was because of the acceptance of the option to travel to Cochin through Mumbai on the same day itself, the opposite parties facilitated the complainant to travel to Cochin through Mumbai. Complainant agreed to fly to Cochin without any dispute or demur and it was on such agreed option complainant boarded the flight from Delhi to Mumbai. Opposite parties arrange air conditioned coach for carriage of the passengers from Cochin to Thiruvananthapuram by road. Opposite parties took all measures within their control so as to assist the passengers including the complainant in the attendant circumstances. There is no deficiency in service, negligence or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties as alleged in the complaint. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs. <br /> The points that would arise for consideration are:<br /> (i)Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties with regard to flight delay?<br /> (ii)Reliefs and costs. <br /> To support the contention in the complaint, complainant has filed an affidavit of herself as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P3 have been marked. On behalf of opposite parties, Vijay Bhushan Pillai, Airport Manager, Jet Airways Ltd. has filed an affidavit. No documentary evidence has been adduced by opposite parties. <br /> Points (i) & (ii):- Admittedly, complainant booked to travel on opposite parties' flight from Delhi to Thiruvananthapuram via Mumbai on 2nd January 2005. It has been the case of the complainant that opposite parties' flight was scheduled to leave Delhi on 2nd January 2005 at 8 a.m and to reach Bombay by 10 a.m on the same day by the connecting flight of opposite parties to reach Thiruvananthapuram at 12.30 p.m on the same day. It has also been the case of the complainant that opposite parties' flight from Delhi to Bombay delayed to take off by four hours which put the complainant in anguish agony from the very inception of her journey. But when complainant finally boarded the aircraft and after sometime of its take off, the flight authorities informed her and other passengers that the connecting flight from Bombay to Thiruvananthapuram has taken off and they will be taken to Cochin by another flight and from Cochin will have to travel on land to Thiruvananthapuram. It has been asserted by the complainant that complainant was not previously informed as to the non-availability of the connecting flight. The complainant reached Bombay in the delayed flight at 3 p.m and was quickly put on to the Cochin flight. It has been stated that opposite parties did not make any announcements at the Thiruvananthapuram airport regarding the shifting of the passengers from the delayed flight to the Cochin flight. Due to the non-providing of this information, complainant's employer at Thiruvananthapuram waited to receive her at the Thiruvananthapuram airport for a very long time. The employer of the complainant was also put to severe mental strain, tension and other difficulties since the complainant was a foreigner who has come on an employment visa to India to work with 'Gurukul School' at Thiruvananthapuram . It has been submitted that complainant reached Cochin at 5 p.m on the same day from where complainant and other passengers were put in a substandard bus by the authorities of opposite parties at Cochin which was totally uncomfortable. Moreover the said bus broke down on the way to Thiruvananthapuram. Finally complainant reached Thiruvananthapuram at 1 a.m on 03.01.2005 after the agonizing journey. The opposite parties have resisted the complaint by filing version with affidavit of the Airport Manager, Jet airways. It has been admitted by the opposite parties that the flight from Delhi to Mumbai was delayed on the said date. The said delay was due to inclement weather by reason of heavy fog conditions at Delhi. The situation and reason for delay was promptly informed to the passengers by opposite parties and they were also informed of the available options and alternate arrangement of flights. The passengers were given two options by the opposite parties, to travel to Cochin on the same day itself via Mumbai or alternatively, to travel to Thiruvananthapuram on the next day wherein hotel accommodation would be provided by the opposite parties on 2nd January 2005. The complainant had opted the former. Neither the complainant nor opposite parties have been cross examined. Ext. P1 is the copy of the passenger ticket issued to the complainant by the opposite parties. Ext. P2 is the copy of reply dated 11.02.2005 issued to the complainant by the opposite parties. In Ext. P2 opposite parties have admitted the inconveniences caused to the complainant due to the delay of opposite parties' flight. It is pertinent to note that the opposite parties have given a different version from that of the reply as seen in Ext. P2. From Ext. P2 it has been been clear that opposite parties have admitted the delay of the flight and have simply made an excuse that the delay was caused due to heavy fog conditions at Delhi, but without proving the same. Opposite parties have not made any whisper in their version nor in the affidavit regarding Ext. P2 reply dated 11.02.2005 issued to the complainant nor have they have objected the marking of the same or denied the issuance of the same. Further opposite parties have admitted the break down of the bus in Ext. P2 but they have denied the occurrence of the same in their version. A perusal of Ext. P2 is sufficient to corroborate the case of the complainant. The onus of proving the otherwise would lay on the opposite parties. Opposite parties have failed to prove their allegation that delay in flight occurred due to inclement weather conditions. This is a clean case where delay caused to the complainant has remained unexplained by the opposite parties. Deficiency in service is proved by Ext. P2. In our considered opinion the opposite parties are liable to reasonably compensate the complainant with regard to deficiency in service as aforesaid. We are of the view that claim set up by the complainant is highly exaggerated. We have appropriate guidance in this respect also from the decision of the State Commission, Ahamedabad reported in 111(2005)CPJ 77 wherein the flight was delayed, connecting flight missed. Delay remained unexplained. Deficiency in service proved. Compensation claim highly exaggerated. State Commission allowed Rs. 15000/- towards compensation, based on the decision of the National Commission reported in 2003 CPJ 201 with 9% interest relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2001(1) Supreme Today page 5. In view of what is stated above and bearing in mind the facts and circumstances of the case we propose to award Rs. 10000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1000/- towards cost. <br /> In the result, complaint is partly allowed. Opposite parties shall pay the complainant Rs. 10000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1000/- towards cost of the complaint. The said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% if not paid within two months from the date of this order. <br /> 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.<br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 30th June 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD,<br /> President.<br /> <br /> BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O.P.No. 99/2005<br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : <br /> <br /> NIL<br /> <br /> II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> <br /> P1 - True copy of passenger ticket issued to the complainant by the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> P2 - True copy of reply dated 11.02.2005 issued to the complainant by the opposite parties. <br /> <br /> P3 - True copy of bill dated 03.01.2005 issued by Comfort Inn Grand to the complainant for Rs. 1617/-.<br /> <br /> III OPPOSITE PARTIES' WITNESS :<br /> <br /> NIL<br /> <br /> IV OPPOSITE PARTIES' DOCUMENTS :<br /> <br /> NIL <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br />