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. 120/2005 Filed on 12/04/2005

Dated: 30..11..2010

Complainant:

S.S. Mony, 206, Sangeeth Nagar, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. V.S. Sunilkumar)

Opposite parties:

1. JET AIRWAYS (India) Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, S.M Centre, Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400 059.

2. Navaid Desai, Head Sales Division, Jet Airways, New Delhi.

3. Manager (Officer-in-charge), Jet Airways, Airport Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. A. Abdul Kharim)

This O.P having been heard on 30..09..2010, the Forum on 30..11..2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that, complainant booked a ticket for his travel from New Delhi to Thiruvananthapuram on 11/1/2005 by the flight service operated by opposite parties, that the flight was scheduled to fly from New Delhi to Thiruvananthapuram on 11/1/2005, that on 11/1/2005 when complainant approached the office of the 2^nd opposite party he was informed then that the flight would be delayed and he was asked to fly by flight No. 9W 332 which was scheduled to fly to Mumbai at 9.20 AM on that day, that he was assured that passengers to Thiruvananthapuram can travel in another flight from Mumbai to Thiruvananthapuram that accordingly complainant reached Mumbai at 11 A.M. that opposite parties failed to make arrangement for further travel to Thiruvananthapuram on arrival of them at Mumbai in flight No.332, that on further enquiries it was revealed that the flight No. 9W 336 was operated on that day and complainant and other passengers were cheated by the opposite parties, that thereafter opposite parties arranged another flight No. 9W 401 to Cochin, that on arrival of the above said flight at Cochin, opposite parties failed to arrange flight service to Thiruvananthapuram and complainant and fellow passengers were put in a Mini Van bearing Reg. No. KL-7-AK 100 which reached at Thiruvananthapuram at 8.30 PM. It is submitted by the complainant that he was on return trip from Honalulu, Hawai, USA, that he was much tired after his long journey even then opposite parties did not care to arrange for his travel in the flight in which ticket was booked. The action of the opposite parties were clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant as compensation along with cost of the proceedings.

2. Opposite parties filed version contending inter alia that complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that on 11/1/2005 flight 9W 332 from Delhi to Mumbai was getting delayed at Delhi due to heavy fog, the second segment of the said flight from Mumbai to Thiruvananthapuram was scheduled to operate on time at 10.40 hrs., that opposite parties' staff at Delhi accommodated some passengers including the complainant on flight 9W 332 from Delhi to Mumbai as it stood a better chance of departure before flight 9W 336, that all the concerned passengers including the complainant were clearly informed that there was every possibility that they may not reach in time even by flight 9W 332 and may not be able to get onward flight 9W 336 which was to depart from Mumbai at 10.40 hrs to Thiruvananthapuram, that complainant flown to Mumbai by flight 9W 332 without any dispute or demur. It is further submitted by opposite parties that the scheduled time of departure of flight was 06.50 hrs and the scheduled time of arrival into Mumbai was 08.45 hrs., that however on 11/1/2005 due to bad weather conditions at Delhi the actual time of departure of flight 9W 332 from Delhi was 09.07 hrs., that it was air borne at 09.27 hrs, that by the time flight 9W 332 landed into Mumbai (ie., at 11.10 hrs.) the flight 9W 336 from Mumbai to Thiruvananthapuram had already departed, that therefore, all the passengers travelling onward to Thiruvananthapuram were boarded on the flight 9W 401 to Cochin, that all the passengers including the complainant, who had agreed to the same without any dispute or demur, that all passengers were informed of the situation, that on arrival into Cochin at 13.40 hrs an air-conditioned coach was arranged for the passengers' further travel from Cochin to Thiruvananthapuram with a seating capacity of 24 seats, that further arrangements for light refreshments and mineral water for all the passengers was made on the said coach so as to ensure that their travel was made comfortable in every possible way. Opposite parties vehemently disputed and denied that there was any deficiency in service and unlawful trade practice. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. The points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Whether complainant is entitled to get compensation?

3. Whether complainant is entitled to get cost?

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit as PW1 and has marked Exts. P1 to P9. In rebuttal, 1^st opposite party has filed affidavit.

4. Points (i) to (iii) : There is no dispute on the point that complainant had booked a ticket for travel from New Delhi to Thiruvananthapuram on 11/01/2005 at 8.00 AM by flight No. 9W 336 of the opposite parties. It has been the case of the complainant that when he approached the Office of the 2^nd opposite party and reported on 11/01/2005 he was informed that the flight would be delayed and he was asked to fly by flight No. 9W 332 which was scheduled to fly to Mumbai at 9.20 AM on that day, that it was assured that passengers to Thiruvananthapuram can travel in another flight from Mumbai to Thiruvananthapuram on arrival of them at Mumbai in flight No. 9W 332, on the said assurance complainant travelled by flight No. 332 to Mumbai, when complainant reached Mumbai opposite parties failed to make arrangement for their further travel to Thiruvananthapuram. It has also been the case of the complainant that enquiries made by him revealed that the flight 9W 336 was operated on that day thereby opposite parties cheated the complainant and other passengers. It is argued by complainant that opposite parties adopted unfair trade practice and passengers were put to peril to make unlawful gain. It has also been the case of the complainant that complainant and other travellers were agitated the opposite parties put them in another flight No. 9W 401 to Cochin and they would be taken to Thiruvananthapuram in another flight. Though complainant and other passengers arrived at Cochin, opposite parties failed to arrange flight service to Thiruvananthapuram complainant and other passengers were brought to Thiruvananthapuram by a Mini Van. The action of the opposite parties caused much mental agony and physical strain to him all along the journey. Complainant was forced to travel in a Mini Van against his will and wish from Cochin to Thiruvananthapuram. Admittedly, complainant travelled by flight No. 9W 332 from New Delhi to Mumbai, by flight No. 9W 401 from Mumbai to Cochin and thereafter on a Mini Van bearing Reg. No. KL-7-AK 100 from Cochin to Thiruvananthapuram. It has been contended by opposite parties that on 11/1/2005 the flight 9W 336 from Delhi to Mumbai was delayed at Delhi due to heavy fog, a ususal weather phenomenon during the season, that the passengers concerned including the complainant were clearly informed at Delhi itself before their boarding the flight that there was every possibility that they may not reach in time and may not be able to get the onward flight 9W 336 which was to depart from Mumbai at 10.40 hrs to Thiruvananthapuram. It has been further submitted by opposite parties that passengers were given two options by opposite parties – to travel to Cochin via Mumbai on the same day itself or alternatively to travel to Thiruvananthapuram on the next day wherein hotel accommodation would be provided by opposite parties, complainant availed either of the options without any objection having fully convinced of the circumstances. It is further contended by opposite parties that opposite parties had arranged an air-conditioned coach for the carriage of the passengers including the complainant from Cochin to Thiruvananthapuram by road, that opposite parties took all measures within their control so as to assist the passengers including the complainant in the attendant circumstances. Ext. P1 is the copy of the confirmed ticket in flight No. 9W 336, which was scheduled to fly from Delhi to Thiruvananthapuram on 11/1/2005. Ext. P2 is the copy of the Boarding Pass issued by opposite parties from Delhi to Mumbai on flight No. 9W 332 and from Mumbai to Cochin on flight No. 9W 0401. Ext. P3 is the copy of Advocate notice to opposite parties sent by the complainant claiming a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- from the opposite parties. Ext. P4 is the postal receipt. Ext. P5 is the acknowledgement card. Ext. P6 is the reply notice dated 01/02/2005 sent by opposite parties stating that the issue has been brought to their attention and is being investigated into by their concerned officials and complainant was advised to forward the copy of client's air ticket for scrutiny. Ext. P7 is the notice to the Legal Co-ordinator of the opposite parties stating that he has forwarded photocopies of the travel tickets and Boarding passes as requested by the legal Co-ordinator on 8/2/2005. Ext. P8 is the postal receipt and Ext. P9 is the acknowledgement card. Complainant has been cross examined by opposite parties. In his cross examination when asked by opposite parties that December – January മാസത്തില്‍ മൂഡല്‍ മഞ്ഞ് കാരണം flight delay – യും cancellation – ഉം വരാറുണ്ടെന്ന് പറയുന്നു (Q). Delay വരാറുണ്ടാകാം എനിക്ക് അറിയില്ല . ഞാന്‍ travel ചെയ്ത flights ഒക്കെ right time ആയിരുന്നു. (A). മൂഡല്‍മഞ്ഞ് കാരണമാണ് flight 9W 336 പുറപ്പെടാന്‍ താമസിക്കുന്നതെന്ന്പറഞ്ഞ് ബോധ്യപ്പെടുത്തിയിരുന്നു എന്നു പറയുന്നു (Q). അങ്ങനെ പറഞ്ഞിട്ടില്ല without our consent or knowledge they changed the flight to 9W 332. Flight No. 9W 332 ന്‍െറ actual schedule time രാവിലെ 6.50 ആയിരുന്നു എന്നും അത് മൂഡല്‍ മഞ്ഞ് കാരണം delay വന്നതു കാരണം സമയം മാറ്റി 9.25-ന് പുറപ്പെടേണ്ടി വന്നത് എന്നു പറയുന്നു (Q). അത് ശരിയല്ല (A). Flight No. 9W 336 delay വരും എന്നതുകൊണ്ടാണ് നേരത്തെ പുറപ്പെടേണ്ടിയിരുന്ന 332 ലേക്ക് കുറച്ച് passengers നെ arrange ചെയ്തത്എന്നു പറയുന്നു (Q). ശരിയല്ല . ഞങ്ങളുടെ permission ഇല്ലായിരുന്നു . Mumbai – ല്‍ നിന്ന് Cochi - യിലേക്ക് ഒരു flight – ല്‍ പോകേണ്ടി വരുമെന്നും തുടര്‍ന്ന് road മാര്‍ഗ്ഗം Thiruvananthapuram എത്തിക്കാമെന്നും Delhi -ല്‍ വച്ച് തന്നെ opposite party നിങ്ങള്‍ ഉള്‍പ്പെടെയുള്ള യാത്രക്കാരോട് പറഞ്ഞ് ബോധ്യപ്പെടുത്തയെന്നും നിങ്ങളുടെ പൂര്‍ണ്ണ സമ്മതത്തോടെയാണ് 332 - ല്‍ യാത്ര ചെയ്തതെന്നും പറയുന്നു (Q). ഇതെല്ലാം സത്യവിരുദ്ധമാണ്. നിഷേധിക്കുന്നു (A) Cochi - യില്‍ നിന്ന് Thiruvananthapuram – ത്തേക്ക് A/c coach Van ലാണ് transport ചെയ്തത്എന്നു പറയുന്നു (Q). തെറ്റാണ്. അത് ഒരു സാധാരണ Van ആയിരുന്നു . Cochi – Thiruvananthapuram - ത്തേക്ക് 2.20 – ന് Indian Airlines വിമാനം ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നു. അതില്‍ കയറ്റി വിട്ടൂടേ എന്ന ചോദ്യത്തിന് Indian Airlines മായി tie up ഇല്ല എന്നും “if you want to go, you can go at your own expense” എന്നതായിരുന്നു മറുപടി . Opposite parties never furnished any material to show that the flight 9W 336 was delayed due to fog. The deponent, who filed affidavit for and on behalf of the 1^st opposite party has no direct knowledge regarding the alleged incident. Opposite parties never furnished any material to show that they have provided appropriate care and required facilities to the passengers when the flight 9W 336 was delayed. Further 1^st opposite party had no idea when the flight 9W 336 was taken off from Delhi Airport on 11/1/2005. It is the bounden duty of the opposite parties to carry the passengers at the earliest by alternative flight to the destination. Herein complainant reached Cochin by flight 9W 0401 from Mumbai to Cochin. Though complainant had booked for his travel from New Delhi to Thiruvananthapuram by the flight service operated by the opposite parties, he could not travel by flight from Cochin to Thiruvananthapuram. Even no documents furnished by opposite parties to show that complainant and other passengers were put on A/c coach from Cochin to Thiruvananthapuram by route. Since complainant denied the same, the onus is on the part of opposite parties. There is no point in dispute that complainant travelled from Cochin to Thiruvananthapuram not by the flight service of the opposite parties. Though opposite parties received amount from the complainant for travel by the flight service operated by opposite parties, complainant could not enjoy the same. Complainant reached Thiruvananthapuram at 8.30 PM in a Van operated by opposite parties which would definitely cause mental agony and physical strain to the complainant and family members who have waited for him at Thiruvananthapuram Airport. Complainant was forced to travel in Mini Van against his will and wish from Cochin to Thiruvananthapuram. Opposite party has no case that there was fog at Cochin Airport. Opposite party has not succeeded in proving that the flight 9W 336 was delayed due to fog at Delhi nor has opposite party furnished any materials to corroborate the contentions in the version. Even if the fog is admitted opposite parties failed to make alternate arrangement to carry the passengers from Cochin to Thiruvananthapuram by connection flight. In view of the foregoing discussions and evidence available on record we find there was deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in rendering flight service to complainant. Further even after the receipt of travel documents from the complainant as requested by Ext. P6 reply notice by the opposite parties, no action was seen taken by them till the date of complaint. Taking into consideration of the totality of circumstance we are of the considered opinion that a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to complainant would meet the ends of justice.

In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties shall pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant towards compensation along with Rs. 1,000/- towards cost. The said amount will carry interest @ 9% if not paid within 2 months from the date of receipt of this order.

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 30^th day of November, 2010.

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

ad.

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness:

PW1 : S.S. Mony

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Copy of the confirmed ticket in flight No. 9 W 336 dated 11/1/2005

P2 : Copy of the Boarding pass

P3 : " advocate notice

P4 : Postal receipt

P5 : Acknowledgement card

P6 : The reply notice dated 01/2/2005 sent by opp. Parties

P7 : The notice to the legal Co-ordinator of the opp. Parties.

P8 : Postal receipt

P9 : Acknowledgement card

III. Opposite parties' witness:

DW1 : Vijay Bhushan

IV. Opposite parties' documents : NIL.

PRESIDENT