IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Monday the 31^st day of January, 2011

Filed on 31.12.09

Present

1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)

in

C.C.No.451/09

between

Complainant:-                                                             Opposite Party:-

     Sri.Feby Dainy George,                                                       The Managing Director,

     S/o P.A. Georgekutty,                                                         Air India,

     Geo Bhavan, , Kattachira                                                     Collis State, M.G.Road

     Pallickal.P.O.                                                                      Cochin – 682-016           

     (By Adv.Alex K John)                                                         (By Adv.Nithin George)

O R D E R

SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)

The complainant case is as follows: - The complainant is working as a Technical support Engineer in Riyadh. For the purpose of coming over to Trivandrum on 27^th November 2009, the complainant availed a ticket in Air India Flight Al-928. When the complainant arrived at the Air Port in Riyadh, it was learnt that there is a delay of five hours for the flight to depart. However, the flight was delayed for twenty four hours. But the opposite party turned up only on expiry of 18 hours. Still, the opposite party only arranged a perfunctory accommodation far below the expected line. The opposite party was not even prepared to arrange facility for the primary needs of the complainant and other passengers. The complainant could not respond to the SMS of the company. His salary was slashed. He had to sustain monetary as well as mental woes. There was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum for compensation.

1. Notice was sent. The opposite party appeared and filed version. The contention of the opposite party is that the flight was delayed not for the willful laxity on the part of the opposite party. The flight A1-928 was the return flight of A1-821 arrived from Mumbai to Riyadh. The said flight arrived late. The same crew operated in the flight Al-­821 was to operate in Al-928. They had to take a minimum hours rest. With the result, the said flight was constrained to take off belatedly. The opposite party provided the complainant and other passengers the amenities of their choice in the intervening period. Hence there is no deficiency of service as alleged by the complainant and the complaint itself is experimental. The same is to be dismissed with cost, the opposite party argues.

2. The evidence of the complainant consists of the testimony of the power of attorney of the complainant as PWl, and the document Exbt Al is marked. Exbt Al is the power of attorney. On the side of the opposite party no evidence was adduced.

            3. Taking into account the contentions of the parties, the issues come up before us for consideration are:-

(a) Whether the service of the opposite party is deficient?

(b) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for by the complainant?

4. Concededly, the complainant was a passenger of the Air India flight Al-­928 on 27^th November 2009. Also it is not in dispute that the flight was delayed. The contention of the complainant that he was not provided the adequate facility during the waiting hours. Even the arrangement to meet the primary requirements was denied. The opposite parties offered explanation for the delay of the flight. The explanation so offered appears to be unreasonable. The opposite party is bound to adopt sufficient measures to systematize the schedule of the operation of the flights and the concerned crew for the convenient conveyance of its duly paid passengers. The opposite party cannot be heard of to line up lame excuses for the inadequacy of its operation of the flights. It is worthy of notice that the opposite party forcefully argues that it offered ample amenities to the complainant and the other passengers. But barring bare statements, the opposite party does not make it a point to adduce evidence to fortify its contentions. Had the opposite parties provided adequate amenities during the waiting hours to the complainant, it could have let in evidence for the same. But the opposite party was disinclined to advance any evidence lending support to its contentions, despite ample opportunity for the same was offered to the opposite party. In the said circumstance, we are constrained to draw adverse inference against the opposite party. We conclude, we have no other course open, but to accept the version advanced by the complainant.

For the forgoing facts and findings herein above, the opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only) as compensation to the complainant which will serve the purpose. The opposite party shall comply with the said order within 30 days of receipt of this order.

In the result, the complaint is allowed accordingly.  The parties are left to bear their own cost.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31^st day of January, 2011.

                                                                                                Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah

Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan

Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi 

Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:- 

PW1                -     Georgekutty.P.A (Witness)

Ext. A1            -     The Power of Attorney

 Evidence of the opposite party:-  Nil

// True Copy //

                                                                                 By Order

                                                                                   Senior Superintendent

To

            Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.

Typed by:- k.x/-       

Compared by:-