Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/260/2012

ISHITHA KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S AIR INDIA LTD - Opp.Party(s)

R. CHANDRASUDAN

24 May 2019

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 19.10.2012

                                                                          Date of Order : 24.05.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.  : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.260/2012

DATED THIS FRIDAY THE 24^TH DAY OF MAY 2019

                                 

Ishitha Kumar,

D/o. G. Vijaya Kumar,

No.434, Sarayu Hostel,

IIT Madras,

Chennai – 600 036.                                                        .. Complainant.                                                

       ..Versus..

M/s. Air India Ltd.,

Represented by its Regional Manager,

No.19, Rukmani Lakshmipathi Road,

Egmore,

Chennai – 600 008.                                                    ..  Opposite party.

 

Counsel for the complainant     : M/s. R. Chandrasudan

Counsel for the opposite party : M/s. N.G.R. Prasad & another

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and dreadful journey on account of deficiency of service with cost to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that she is a Phd student of IIT Campus, Chennai booked a ticket in the opposite party’s Airlines to embark on a trip to Warsaw, Poland via Frankfurt to Grace as a part of her curriculum and as she was invited to take part in the 34^th International Symposium on Combustion held on 29.07.2012 to 03.08.2012 at Warsaw in Poland.  The complainant submits that her onward journey from Chennai Airport till the final destination to Warsaw in Poland was very smooth and successful after making a mark at the conference.  The complainant had boarded the flight at Warsaw, Poland on 03.08.2012 at 13.45 hours and reached Frankfurt Germany at 15.35 hours to board the flight to Delhi, India.  She was given due ticket by the opposite party to board a flight No. AG 12 AI 120 to travel from Frankfurt, Germany with a boarding time of 21.50 hours.  She has to reach New Delhi on 04.08.2012 at 9.10 hours.  But to the dismay, the complainant was waiting in Frankfurt Airport lounge to board the said flight. on passing of time, while reaching the departure time, there was no announcement.  Hence, the complainant approached the Airport officials in Frankfurt and ascertained the status that the Flight No.A1 120 from Frankfurt to Chennai subject matter of dispute was existing and the flight is not operating and hence, the opposite party rescheduled the time. 

2.     The complainant submits that the conduct of the opposite party by issuing the ticket without the knowledge of own flight itinerary.  When the complainant asked the reason for cancellation of flight with the opposite party, the opposite party has replied that cancellation of the flight is due to the Pilot Officers strike.  The complainant submits that due to the sudden unexpected strike and its circumstances, the complainant was struck up in Frankfurt Airport  without any mode of communication to inform the matter to her parents also.  But the opposite party’s officials made suitable arrangements and the complainant boarded the re-scheduled flight and reached New Delhi on 04.08.2012 at 6 hours wherein, the luggage was misplaced and not reached the Delhi Airport.  The complainant submits that sudden cancellation of flight due to strike of the employees caused great mental agony and hardship.  The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused great mental agony.  Hence, the complaint is filed.

3.      The brief averments in the written version filed by opposite party is as follows:

The opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The opposite party states that the complainant suppressed the material facts and filed this complaint with imaginary allegations.  This opposite party filed newspaper report regarding illegal strike of Air India pilots.  It is an admitted fact by the opposite party that the complainant has booked the ticket and checked in details, issued the boarding pass.  The opposite party states that the only dispute to the complainant is that at Frankfurt, she was informed that there was no such flight namely; AI 120 leaving 9.10 pm. and arrived Chennai on 04.08.2012 at 6.40 hours.  Since unexpectedly of Air India Pilots conducted strike from May 2012, this opposite party hopping  that the strike would be called off at any movement and the pilots would have resumed duty.  But it is unfortunate that the crews and pilots were conducted strike. Hence, alternative arrangement were made and the complainant was safely travelled and reached Chennai on 04.08.2012. Therefore, there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.   Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as her evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party is filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B9 are marked on the side of the opposite party.

5.      The point for consideration is:-

Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service, mental agony dreadful journey etc with cost as prayed for?

6.      On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.   Heard the opposite party’s Counsel also.  Perused the records namely; the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents. The complainant pleaded and contended that she is a Phd student of IIT Campus, Chennai booked a ticket in the opposite party’s Airlines to embark on a trip to Warsaw, Poland via Frankfurt to Grace as a part of her curriculum and as she was invited to take part in the 34^th International Symposium on Combustion held on 29.07.2012 to 03.08.2012 at Warsaw in Poland.  Further the contention of the complainant is that her onward journey from Chennai Airport till the final destination to Warsaw in Poland was very smooth and successful after making a mark at the conference.  The complainant had boarded the flight at Warsaw, Poland on 03.08.2012 at 13.45 hours and reached Frankfurt Germany at 15.35 hours to board the flight to Delhi, India.  She was given due ticket by the opposite party to board a flight No. AG 12 AI 120 to travel from Frankfurt, Germany with a boarding time of 21.50 hours.  She has to reach New Delhi on 04.08.2012 at 9.10 hours.  But to the dismay, the complainant was waiting in Frankfurt Airport lounge to board the said flight. on passing of time, while reaching the departure time, there was no announcement.  Hence, the complainant approached the Airport officials in Frankfurt and ascertained the status that the Flight No.A1 120 from Frankfurt to Chennai subject matter of dispute was existing and the flight is not operating.  Hence, the opposite party rescheduled the time as per Ex.A3.   

7.     Further the contention of the complainant is that the conduct of the opposite party by issuing the ticket without the knowledge of own flight itinery speaks itself about the deficiency in service.  When the complainant asked the reason for cancellation of flight with the opposite party, the opposite party has replied that cancellation of the flight is due to the reason Pilot Officers strike.  Ex.B1 is the news paper reports regarding Air India strike.  But the opposite party has not pleaded and proved that the strike is legal.  If the strike would have been legal, prior notice may be given by the workers.  Further the contention of the complainant is that due to the sudden unexpected strike and its circumstances, the complainant was struck up in Frankfurt Airport  without any mode of communication to inform the matter to her parents also caused great mental agony.  But the complainant admitted herself that the opposite party’s officials made suitable arrangements and the complainant boarded the re-scheduled flight and reached New Delhi on 04.08.2012 at 6 hours wherein, the luggage was misplaced and not reached the Delhi Airport.  Ex.B5 is the copy of Baggage manifest of AI 126.  But there is no claim for such loss of checked in payment because as per Ex.B7, the complainant received the baggage.  Further, the complainant contended that sudden cancellation of flight due to strike of the employees caused great mental agony and hardship. The complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation.

8.     The learned Counsel for the opposite party would contend that the complainant suppressed the material facts and filed this complaint with imaginary allegations.  This opposite party filed newspaper report regarding illegal strike of Air India pilots as per Ex.B1.  The complainant booked the ticket and checked in details, issuance of boarding pass as per Ex.B2  Ex.B3 etc are admitted.  The only grievance is at Frankfurt, the complainant was informed that there was no such flight namely; AI 120 leaving 9.10 pm. and arrived Chennai on 04.08.2012 at 6.40 hours.  Since unexpectedly of Air India Pilot conducted strike from May 2012, this opposite party hopping  that the strike would be called off at any movement and the pilots would have resumed duty.  But it is unfortunate that the crews and pilots were conducted strike.  Hence, alternative arrangement was made and the complainant was safely travelled and reached Chennai on 04.08.2012.   There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.   The delay in rescheduling the flight is inevitable and meagre.  There is no loss of any kind caused to the petitioner.  As per Ex.B8 Excerpts from Regulations, it reads as follows:

• The Company reserves to itself the right, without assigning any reason, to cancel or delay the commencement or continuance of the flight or to alter the stopping place or to deviate from the route of the journey or to change the type of aircraft in use without thereby incurring any liability in damages or otherwise to the guests or any other person on any ground whatsoever.  The Company also reserves to itself the right to refuse to carry any person whom it considers unfit to travel or who in the opinion of the company may constitute risks to the aircraft or to the persons on board.
• If at any stage it is found that the aircraft with the booked load or guests etc. will be over loaded the Company will have the right to decide which guest or articles shall be off-loaded and such decision shall be binding.
• The Company is not liable for any loss or damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by ar of guests or baggage.   Receipt without complaint of registered baggage on the termination of the journey shall be prima facie evidence that the baggage has been delivered correctly and in good condition.
• The ticket issued by the Company shall be subject to rules of cancellation made by the Company for the time being in force, which may be seen at any office of the Company on request.
• In the event of death of a guest, or any bodily injury or wound suffered by a guest which results in a permanent disablement incapacitating him from engaging in or being occupied with his usual duties or business occupation, the liability of the Carrier for each guest shall be INR 7,50,000 if the guest is 12 years or more of age and INR 3,75,000 if the guest is below 12 years of age on the date of accident.

9.     The learned Counsel for the opposite party also cited a decision reported in:

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

NEW DELHI

Between

Indian Airlines

-Versus-

Rajesh Kumar Upadhyay

Held that

          “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 14(d) – Award of compensation to the consumers – Only for any loss or injury suffered due to the negligence of the opposite party – Complainant’s claim for compensation based on the ground of delay in operation of the Indian Airlines flight-  there was no evidence to show that the delay was occasioned by any negligence of the Airlines staff – Every possible action was taken by the staff to avoid waste of time or inconvenience to the passengers – The direction made in the impugned order for payment of Rs.200/- to the complainant for the loss of time and inconvenience in manifestly illegal and without jurisdiction (Cross Ref: Non-International Carriage (Passage & Baggage) Regulations, 1980)”.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that this complaint has to be dismissed.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 24^th day of May 2019. 

 

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	03.07.2012	Copy of E-ticket No.0982103969767 issued from Chennai to Warsaw, Poland and back via New Delhi and Frankfurt, Germany
Ex.A2		Copy of Property Irregularity Report
Ex.A3	04.08.2012	Copy of conjunctive E-Ticket No.0982103697768 issued for the rescheduled ticket from Frankfurt to New Delhi
Ex.A4	27.09.2012	Copy of information under RTI Act obtained about the opposite party
Ex.A5		Copy of details about cancelled flights of the opposite party and the winter schedule
Ex.A6		Copy of complaint written in web page  by another passenger

 

OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.B1		Copy of News Papers reports regarding Air India strike
Ex.B2		Copy  of complainant’s ticket booking, check-in details
Ex.B3		Copy of complainant’s boarding pass
Ex.B4		Copy of Steigenberger Hotels & Resorts check-in details and bill raised on the opposite party Airlines
Ex.B5		Copy of baggage manifest of AI 126
Ex.B6		Copy of tracer messages for complainant’s baggage
Ex.B7	06.08.2012	Copy of acknowledgement given by the complainant while receiving the baggage
Ex.B8		Copy of extract from the conditions of carriage
Ex.B9	25.03.2012	Copy of time table for the period 5th March 2012 to 27th October 2012

 

 

 

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT