JUDGEMENT

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that complainant’s son Akash Mitra, aged about 20 years, student was harassed while travelling from Kolkata (CCU) to New York (USA) via Mumbai, on the ground that the op authority Air India charged excess baggage charges for his journey and also for his arrival at Rutgers University at late hours.  It is specifically mentioned that his son Akash Mitra the student in Rutgers University N.J. USA and for his journey from Kolkata to New York (USA) on 20.01.2013 connecting flight via Mumbai complainant purchased one ticket for his son’s journey and as student he opted for Maharaja Baggage Scheme allowing him to carry 3^rd baggage free of cost. 

          But Air India flight from CCU to B’bay was delayed by 6 hours and he failed to avail of connecting Air India Flight from Mumbai to New York and so he was stranded at Mumbai Airport whole night and in morning Air India ground staff offered his two option- 1) stay at hotel and take same flight next day at 1:00 AM, 2) travel to Mumbai – London by Air India and subsequently London – New York by B.A. Flight.

          But fact remains he had deadline of reaching to University he opted for 2^nd option.  But he was not informed of CODE-Sharing Agreement and he was charged for extra luggage by B.A. at London Airport for which he was compelled to pay a sum by using his emergency Credit Card.  It is further alleged that at Kolkata and Mumbai Air India ground official assured him all help and service.  Thereafter the complainant’s son tried to settle the issue with Air India official number of times but they harassed and thereafter he lodged a complaint to the office of Asst. Director of Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practice, Kolkata R.O. and ultimately they did not turn up and harassed his son and for which complainant has prayed for compensation from Air India to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- for deficiency and unfair trade practice.

          On the other hand op by filing written version submitted that the complaint is not maintainable with regard to free gifts or free service and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Further submitted that his son is a consumer but he is not a party as complainant for which complaint should be dismissed.  Further they submitted that British Airways has provided services from Heathrow Airport to further destination and as such unless and until British Airways is made a party to the proceeding the present complaint is liable for non joinder of parties.

          Further it is submitted that complainant filed this complaint after hearing the matter from his son who is in USA and the entire complaint is therefore based on hearsay statement which is not admissible.  It is also submitted that op appeared before the CA Department and submitted written version and that written version is also filed in this case.  It is further submitted that his son had missed the flight for delayed arrival at Mumbai Airport for which he was offered two options, either to take the next flight scheduled on the next day along with complimentary stay in a nearby star hotel with transfer and meal or take a connecting flight to London there from take another flight to USA. But the son of the complainant was explained in detail the procedure regarding the connecting flight and was also informed that the free baggage scheme would not be available to him and since the same is offered under certain terms and conditions and after understanding the offers the son of the complainant chose to take a connecting flight of British Airways.

          As the complainant’s son was very much interested to travel to London and take a British Airways flight for personal choice as he would have reached his destination only 4-5 hours earlier compared to the arrival time of the next Air India flight and his personal interest to fly to London by British Airways was his choice with full knowledge for which the complaint is frivolous and should be dismissed.

                                                    Decision with reasons

          Fact remains that after hearing the complainant, the father of the student Akash Mitra and also considering the fact that complainant purchased one ticket for his son Akash Mitra for his journey to USA which is undisputed fact.  But anyhow after hearing the Ld. Lawyer for the op, it is found that Akash Mitra, scholar offer for 2013-14 was given to Akash Mitra and as per said terms and conditions of the said offer and scholar it is found that the Maharaja Scholars was not valid on CODE sharing flights and from the said ticket purchased by Akash Mitra, it is found that free baggage allowance of Air India for travel to USA.

          Fact remains that for delayed journey of Air India Akash Mitra arrived at Mumbai Airport at some belated stage but Akash Mitra was given two option for availing of the next flight of Air India along with stay in a nearby star hotel with transfer and meal or take a connecting flight to London there from take another flight to USA and admitted fact is that son of the complainant choice to take connecting flight of British Airways because he wanted to reach at New York about 4-5 hours before the arrival of the next flight of Air India and it is proved that Air India authority on the same ticket given a chance to the complainant’s son to avail of British Airways what was the choice of the son of the complainant and accordingly without paying any further payment of the ticket, though the rate of the fair of the British Airways is high. Complainant’s son availed of it and reached USA and no doubt about 4/5 hours prior to arrival of the next flight of the Air India.

          Fact remains as per terms and conditions of the Maharaja Scholar Scheme what the complainant’s son availed of free Air India and purchased the ticket free baggage allowance on Air India for travel to and from USA.  So, considering the terms and conditions, it is found that the complainant’s son was granted no cost for baggage allowance because it was free if complainant’s son used to avail of next flight of Air India on that day next morning but as per agreement itinerary receipt it is found that complainant’s son after arrival of Mumbai did not avail the proposal of Air India authority for availing of the flight on the next morning hours they complainant’s son was given option for staying Mumbai at a good hotel with free of cost including food and lodging etc. but complainant’s son opted it.

          But fact remains as per observation of the National Commission Air Lines authority disrupted their respective to schedule by placing the complainant’s son in the British Airways without any charging fees.  So, in this regard we have gathered that op discharged their liabilities by placing him in British Airways in same ticket of Air India.  But only grievance is that when complainant went from London to USA by British Airways, at Heathrow he was charged 90 pound for extra luggage for British Airways in spite of showing the document for the free baggage.  Fact remains that Air India Maharaja Scholars offers 2013-14 was only for the students above 18 years and above but if anyone wants to enjoy the scholar offer in that case he must have to avail of the Airways of Air India and in that case any luggage if shall be assessed by the Air India.  But in the present case Air India never charged any luggage but as because complainant’s son chose to reach USA by British Airways that was arranged by the Air India authority on the basis of their ticket without paying any further charge.  But as because about excess luggage charge of 90 pound was charged at Heathrow Airport by the British Airways and under any circumstances that amount cannot be treated as taken by the Air India and for which under any circumstances Air India cannot be responsible for that because that Akash Mitra had his scope to wait for 4/5 hours in that case he must have to reach USA after 4/5 hours from the date of this actual arrival through Airways but he did not opt it and it is fact that the Maharaja Scholar offer is not valid on CODE sharing flight that is written there.  But even after that Akash Mitra did not accept that proposal but he chose to avail of journey through British Airways for which this offer cannot be valid on CODE Sharing offer and it was known to the purchaser the father of Akash Mitra and fact remains all those papers are in the hand of the complainant’s son at the time of purchasing the ticket and in the ticket it is also mentioned that such an offer is only valid if the student avails of the flight of Air India.

          But in this case complainant’s son did not opt to avail of the flight of Air India for which complainant said ticket was valid for journey but as because it was arranged regarding luggage offer, regarding carrying luggage at free of cost because British Airways is a CODE Sharing  flights.  Fact remains that complainant’s son is an intelligent and he was aware of the rules and he was also offered for next flight of Air India shall have to leave Mumbai Airport after lapse of 4/5 hours from the departure time of British Airways and from that period complainant’s son shall be allowed hotel and food and lodging and other avenues at free of cost by Air India authority but the son of the complainant did not accept the Air India’s offer but availed of an alternative offer to avail of the journey through British Airways and no doubt allowing baggage by the British Airways availed of the journey but ultimately for accepting such option of the Air India complainant’s son has lost his right of carrying luggage at free of cost as because he enjoyed CODE Sharing flights.

          Fact remains that complainant’s son was provided with alternative arrangement forthwith, complainant’s son arrived his place that is University and joined there.  So there was no harassment on the part of the op, no deficiency of service is here and there and furthermore any free gift by any authority regarding journey in that case I any customer wants to enjoy that free gift journey that must be enjoyed by the customer if he avails of the air journey of the particular flight company and as because complainant’s son adopted alternative relief then it is proved that complainant’s son intentionally did not avail of Air India flight but as because he was willing to enjoy British Airways he availed it knowing fully well that fair price of British Airways is higher than the Air India.  So, he availed of it as adventure and complainant’s son to enjoy adventure avails British Airways flight at same ticket then there was no negligent or deficiency on the part of Air India or the op.

          Fact remains as because complainant’s son did not avail of Air India flight for which for excess luggage he was bound to pay such charge as per Maharaja Scholar offer 2013-14 and it was within the knowledge of the complainant and his son for which no amount was charged by the Air India.  But for adopting alternative journey by the complainant’s son, complainant’s failed to get such benefit of the offer.  Then anyhow the complainant’s son had not been deceived by the op and after through consideration of the materials on record, we have gathered that this case was filed by the complainant only reading some lines from some newspaper cutting or E-mail cutting each and other incident shall be considered by the Forum from the corner of the complainant’s written version and after considering the pros and cons of the fact we have gathered that the entire complaint is baseless and truth is that for enjoying adventure by British Airways by his son, his son was deprived to get free service in respect luggage and that is not the fault of the op.

          Another factor is that luggage charge was charged by the British Airways, British Airways was not made a party and another factor is that luggage was charged at Heathrow Airport, so cause of action may be arisen at Heathrow Airport not in India or at Kolkata.  But nowadays it has become a practice of the consumer or consumer parent to file case anyhow to grab some money when knowing what is the defiend as negligent and deficient manner of service, what is negligent manner of service in respect of contract and what is the free gift in respect of journey etc.  Probably being misconceived the father of consumer Akash Mitra filed this complaint and no doubt in this case complainant is not a consumer.  But his son Akash Mitra is the consumer.  So, the complaint ought to have been filed by his son Akash Mitra or the mediated of the filing of the complaint should be otherwise and holding of the complaint would be Sri Akash Mitra, the consumer being represented by his father, but that is not here.  But even then we are not dismissing the complaint only for that defect but we are dismissing the complaint for proper consideration on merit and deciding the dispute after considering the same from all aspects.

          In the result, the complaint fails.

          Hence, it is

                                                              ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest but without any cost against the op.