DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 59  of 2022.

 

Sri Animesh Saha,

Gangail Road,

Sree Krishna Palli,

Master Para,

Agartala, West Tripura,

Pin- 799001. .......................Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

M/S Air India Ltd.,

Airlines House,

113, Gurudwara Rakabganj Road,

New Delhi- 110001. ...................... Opposite Party.

 

 

      __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant :Sri Uttam Bandyapadhya,

Sri Mrinal Kanti Sengupta,

Learned Advocate.

 

For the Opposite Party : Ex-parte.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : 30.12.2022

 

J U D G M E N T

          The case led to the proceedings owing to a complaint petition filed by Mr. Animesh Saha, a resident of Gangail Road, Master Para, Agartala (here-in-after referred to as ‘Complainant’) against M/s Air India Ltd., New Delhi (here-in-after referred to as ‘O.P.’) u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

2. The averments of the case are, in brief, that the Complainant along with two other members of his family scheduled an air travel through the airline-carrier of O.P. from Kolkata to Agartala on 16.11.2021. Accordingly, they reached the airport for reporting for their air-travel by flight No. AI 745 having tickets with PNR No. H0QYF and reported through the respective reporting counter of the O.P. Boarding passes for the air-travel were issued to the Complainant. Thereafter, at the time of undertaking of security check by the Complainant and his family members, the Complainant received a telephone call from the O.P. to report again to the check-in counter. On reaching there, he was asked to pay Rs.17,400/- for carrying excess luggage of 29 Kgs. Such demand of O.P. came to the Complainant as shocking and surprising. The Complainant was also intimated that if the payment for excess quantity of baggage is not made by them then he and his family shall not be allowed to board the flight. Meanwhile, the O.P. unloaded the check-in baggages barring one piece of baggage. It was discovered later on that the piece of baggage which was not unloaded had actually been transported to Agartala and such act did aggravate the mental agony of the Complainant and his family. It is alleged by the Complainant that the O.P. did not make any mention about the excess luggage initially and issued the necessary boarding passes for travelling and thereafter abruptly charging an amount for carrying excess baggage which according to him was a fraudulent exercise instituted by the O.P. It is also submitted that due to the action initiated by the O.P. by not allowing him and his family to travel by the scheduled flight despite their issuing boarding passes to them and eventually loosing one baggage by him makes the O.P. liable to refund the amount paid by the Complainant for booking the tickets. It is also alleged by the Complainant that he attempted many a time to contact with the O.P. by way of phone calls and sending messages for resolution of his grievances and to refund the amount paid for booking the tickets but to no avail. Rather, there had been an effort and intention from the side of O.P. not to assist the Complainant which describes as their unprofessionalism in managing their business.                                                  The Complainant also issued a legal notice to the O.P. but that remained un-responded. As no remedy of the grievances received from O.P., the Complainant filed this complaint petition to the Commission. It is submitted by the Complainant that the O.P. had miserably failed to render the committed service to the customer which amounts to gross deficiency of service on their part. It is also submitted that for such deficiency of service the O.P. is liable to refund the amount spent for booking tickets with 18% interest along with a compensation of Rs. 1.00 lac and a litigation cost of Rs.5000/-. Hence this case.

 

3. Despite of servicing notice to the O.P. and allowing adequate time and opportunities to appear and contest the case by filing written objection, the O.P. failed to initiate action towards the same. Hence, this case proceeded exparte against the O.P.

 

4. The Complainant has submitted his Examination-in-chief by way of an affidavit. The documents submitted along with the complaint petition have been exhibited and marked as Exhibit- 1 Series.

 

5. Now, the points which are to be decided in this case are:

(i) Whether the O.P. has caused any deficiency of service against the Complainant?

(ii) Whether the Complainant is entitled to receive the relief including compensation, as being sought for?

(iii) If the answer of the question No. 4(ii) above is ''Yes'' then what would be the quantum of compensation?

 

6. We have heard arguments from the side of the Complainant. It is argued from the side of the Complainant that the air-travel for the Complainant and his other two members of his family were scheduled from Kolkata to Agartala on 16.11.2021 by Air India Flight No. AI 745 and having a PNR No. HOQYF for the booked tickets. The Complainant, accordingly, reported through check-in counter successfully and necessary boarding passes were issued by the O.P. But at the time of undertaking the security check, the Complainant was asked over phone to report again to the check-in counter. On his reaching to the check-in counter the Complainant was asked to pay an amount of Rs.17400/- for being the charge of carrying  excess quantity of baggage weighing 29 Kgs. It has been submitted by the Complainant that the demand was illegal, irrational and unjust since they had completed the check-in process successfully earlier and the O.P. accepted their baggages deposited with them at the time of check-in and thus issued necessary boarding passes for boarding the flight and; yet they had been denied to travel by the schedule flight. It is also submitted that their baggages were unloaded except one piece of baggage which was transported to Agartala for their utter dismay and surprise where the Complainant and his family were not permitted to board the flight. It has been pleaded by the Complainant that such act on the part of the O.P. is a clear and distinct case of negligence in rendering appropriate service to the Complainant and his family, as being their clients, by the O.P. and, therefore, it establishes the deficiency of service committed by them.

 

7. We heard arguments of the Complainant and looked through and appraised the documents, as being submitted and relied upon by the Complainant. It has been observed by us that the office of the O.P. initially allowed the reporting of the Complainants and his family by issuing the necessary boarding passes for boarding the flight. At the time of check-in they did not pointed out any issue for carrying excess baggage by the Complainant and his family. It appears from the baggage coupon issued through the check-in counter of O.P. that 4 baggages of a total weight of 72 Kgs. were allowed at the counter for carrying by the Complainant and his family. But, later on the O.P. demanded an amount of Rs.17,400/-, being the charge for an excess baggage of weighing 29 Kgs, to the Complainant and his family.

 

8. It is a matter of fact that as per the sub-heading mentioned as ‘Baggage Information’ under the heading of ''Important Information'' as being provided in the air tickets issued to the Complainant, it is specified that one passenger can carry one check-in baggage and one hand baggage only. Additional pieces of baggage will be subject to additional charges per piece in addition to the excess baggage charges. As per this specified limit, the Complainant and the other 2 members of his family are entitled to travel with 3 check-in baggages. But, the Complainant and his family reported to travel by the scheduled flight with 4 check-in baggages with an aggregating weight of 72 Kgs. We consider that the check-in counter of O.P. had rightly detected the discrepancy at the subsequent stage and their charging for an extra baggage was in accordance to the well-defined stipulated travel rules of the O.P. The Complainant and his family had declined to pay the charge for extra baggage and thus they were not allowed to board the flight by O.P. Therefore, the Complainant is not entitled to get refund of the amount spent to book the air-tickets. But, at the same time, we have found a serious irregularity on the part of O.P. in charging for an extra baggage weighing 29 Kgs. We have observed that the total weight of 4 baggages is 72 Kgs. Therefore, it can be worked out that the total weight of 3 baggages, which had been allowed by O.P. to travel with, was 42 Kgs. Arithmetically it can be said that individual weight of the 3 baggages will be substantially low in comparison to baggage weighing 29 Kgs. Therefore, it can be emphatically concluded that had the O.P. picked up the least weighed baggage out of 3 baggages, which were permitted to travel with, the burden of paying extra charges for carrying an additional piece of baggage would have been substantially less to the Complainant and his family. We are of the opinion that O.P. has cherry-picked a baggage with largest weight to suit to their benefit and which amounts to adoption of unfair trade practice by O.P.

9. Further it is beyond our comprehension as to how one of the 4 baggages was dispatched and transported to Agartala where the Complainant and his family were not allowed to travel by the flight? This caused additional mental agony and sufferings to the Complainant and his family due to an apprehension of losing the baggage. This is a gross irregular act and amounts to deficiency of service committed on the part of the O.P.

 

10. In view of the points described in the aforegoing paras, we hold that the Complainant and his family has abled to prove their case partially. We therefore, direct the O.P. to pay a lumpsum Rs.12,000/- as compensation which includes the compensation for mental agony and sufferings along with litigation cost within 2 months from the date of this judgment. Failing to pay the money within the specified time shall attract 9% interest P.A. over the amount till realization in full.

 

11. Accordingly, all the points are decided. Supply free copy of the judgment to both the parties. Complainant is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment to the O.P. by registered post.   

 

          Announced.

 

 

 

 

SRI  RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.