DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 19th day of December 2022
Filed on: 07.05.2015
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member
Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C. No.272/2015
COMPLAINANT
Jacob Paul, S/o.Paulose, Athanickal House, Oliyappuram P.O., Koothattukulam-686 672
(By Adv.Tom Joseph, Court Road, Muvattupuzha-686 661
VS.
OPPOSITE PARTY
M/s.Air India, Collis Estate, M.G.Road, Ernakulam, Kochi-16, Represented by its Managing Director.
(o.p rep. by Adv.M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, M/s.Menon & Pai, I.S.Press Road, Ernakulam, Kochi-682 018)
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B.Binu, President.
1) A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under Section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant is employed in Canada as a male nurse. He had purchased tickets from the opposite party for his return trip from Kochi to Mumbai (Flight No. A319), Mumbai-London Flight No.787-8) on Air India flights, and London- Vancouver on Air Canada flight (Boeing 777-300 E R) by paying 1800 Canadian dollars. The opposite party and Air Canada have a tie-up and hence the connection flight to Vancouver was arranged by the opposite party. The complainant had purchased the ticket from Vancouver to Whitehorse, the place of work of the complainant paying 329.83/- dollars. On 30.03.2015 the complainant reached at Kochi airport and the Mumbai flight took off at 6.30 am and reached Mumbai in time. But the flight to London reached Heathrow Terminal (No.4) 20 minutes late. The time gap between the Mumbai- London flight arrival at Heathrow and the departure of the Air Canada flight is only 2.40 hours. The coach meant for transferring the complainant to terminal 2 also came late and thereby the complainant reached Terminal 2 late, where the Air Canada flight was stationed. By the time the complainant reached terminal No.2, the Air Canada flight took off. Consequently, the complainant was stranded at the Airport. The matter was brought to the notice of the concerned officers of the opposite party and they arranged a transit visa and hotel accommodation. They procured a fresh ticket for travel on the next day. But the ticket was not a confirmed one and consequently, the Air Canada authorities refused to allow the journey. Again, another ticket was arranged for the next day. By the time the transit visa got expired and hence the opposite party arranged a return ticket to India. When he reached Kochi Airport, it is found that the two bags entrusted with the opposite party was found missing. New pants, shirts, blankets, shoes, academic documents, and albums worth Rs.50,000/-were kept in the bags. Subsequently, the complainant was compelled to purchase fresh tickets by paying Rs.78,069/-to travel to Canada on 6th April 2015. The purposeful omission on the part of the opposite party to foresee the sudden delays of the flights in deciding the time of the connecting flight is the reason for the hardships, mental agony, and financial loss suffered by the complainant. If the opposite party had foreseen any snags and delays of the flights, they should have arranged the connection flight by giving a sufficient time gap so as to avoid any hardships to the complainant. The omission on the part of the opposite party to give a sufficient time gap for the connection flight amounts to a deficiency in service. The complainant incurred Rs.78,069/- for procuring a fresh ticket to Canada. He had also suffered a loss to the tune of 44 dollars (Rs.2112/-) which he paid towards bus fare from the white house to Watson Lake. He had lost seven working days. Thereby he suffered a salary loss to the tune of 700 dollars (Rs.33,600/-). He had also suffered a loss to the tune of 329.83/- dollars (Rs. 15831.84) towards the flight fare from Vancouver to Whitehorse. Due to the loss of his bags, he suffered a loss of Rs.50,000/-. The complainant is entitled to Rs. 179612.84/-, the loss suffered on various heads mentioned in the above paragraph. He is also entitled to Rs.5,00,000/-towards compensation for the mental agony and hardships suffered by him due to the break of the travel to Canada and the consequent delay in reaching Canada and the cost of the proceedings.
2) Notice
Notice was issued from the Commission to the opposite party and the opposite party received the notice, entered appearance, and filed version.
3) VERSION FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY
The Complainant was to travel from Kochi to Mumbai via Flight AI 55 on 30th March 2015 (Departure: 22:00 hours IST, Arrival: 23:45 hours IST), Mumbai to London via Flight AI 131 on 31 March (Departure: 06:30 hours IST, Arrival: 11:30 hours GMT), London to Vancouver via Flight AC 855 on 31st March (Departure: 14:10 hours GMT, Arrival: 18:40 hours PST) and from Vancouver to Whitehorse via Flight AC 291 on 31st March (Departure: 21:05 hours PST, Arrival: 23:32 hours PST). The averment that the Opposite Party and Air Canada had a tie-up and the connection flight to Vancouver was arranged by the Opposite Party is completely false and hence denied. This Opposite Party had no tie-up with Air Canada at the time of the alleged incidents. The ticket on the flight Air Canada was purchased by the Complainant of his own volition. The averment stating that the Kochi-Mumbai flight had taken off at 06:30 hours on 30th March 2015 is not true. The flight from Kochi departed as scheduled at 22:00 hours on 30th March 2015. Even assuming that there was a delay of 20 mins for the flight from Mumbai to arrive at London, the Complainant had ample time to hoard the connecting flight, i.e. Flight No, AC 855. Even taking the alleged delay of 20 mins into account, the Complainant had more than 90 minutes to board the connecting flight AC 855. The light from Mumbai landed in Terminal No. 4 and the Air Canada flight in which the Complainant was to travel was scheduled to depart from Terminal No. 2. As per practice at Heathrow Airport, after disembarkation all connecting passengers take the free inter-terminal transfer bus operated by the Heathrow Airport Limited. The passengers traveling by Air Canada flight which was scheduled to depart from Terminal 2 were guided to the inter-terminal transfer buses from Terminal 4 to Terminal 2. The buses operate every 6 to 10 minutes. The averment that the transfer bus was late is without any basis whatsoever and hence denied. Once the passenger reaches Terminal 2, he has to contact the Air Canada transfer desk or go directly to the boarding gate. It is reiterated that after arriving in London, the Complainant had enough more time to board the connecting flight to Vancouver. It is submitted that 10 the minimum connecting time at the London Airport is one hour and fifteen minutes. The Complainant had much more than the minimum connecting time for boarding the flight to Canada. However, the Complainant did not reach the counter on time. The reason for the Complainant to miss the connection flight is beyond the knowledge of the opposite Party and the opposite Party cannot be blamed for the same. The allegations stated in paragraph 3 are baseless and hence denied. The Complainant was rebooked to the next Air Canada flight operating the next day and availed TWOV facility (transit without a visa). However, the Air Canada flight which was scheduled for the next day, could not offer the seat to the passenger the 20 next day. The United Kingdom Immigration Department advised deportation of the Complainant back to India and the Opposite Party being the delivering carrier had the responsibility to transport the passenger back to India. Therefore, the Complainant was deported back to Kochi. The allegation that 2 baggage of the Complainant were missing is also without any basis. Out of the 2 baggage, 1 baggage under the tag number Alo12010 was delivered to the Complainant on 16th April and the second baggage under tag number Alo12011 was delivered to the Complainant on 4th May. Hence, the averment that the 2 baggage of the Complainant has gone missing is not true. Expenses incurred by the Complainant to travel after the alleged incidents are not known to the Opposite Party and hence denied. The allegations stated in paragraph 4 of the Complaint are not true and hence denied. There was no purposeful omission on the part of the Opposite Party to foresee the sudden delay of the flight made by the Opposite Party as alleged in the complaint. There was absolutely no wilful negligence on the part of the Opposite Party. It is reiterated that the Complainant had enough more time to board the connecting flight from London. As a result of the Complainant having missed the connection flight, he was provided with an alternative arrangement. The Complainant is to be solely blamed for missing the connection flight AC 855 from London. The further averment that there was an omission on the part of the Opposite Party in not giving sufficient time gap for the connection flight amounts to a deficiency of service is completely false and hence denied. The averment stating loss suffered by the Complainant due to loss of baggage is false and hence denied. The baggage was returned to the Complainant as soon as it was under the possession of the Opposite Party. The alleged loss suffered by the Complainant is only due to the acts of the Complainant alone and no liability for the same will fall upon the Opposite Party.
4) . Evidence
The complainant had filed 8 documents that were marked as Exhibits-A-1 to A-8.
Exhibit A-1. Copy of the Passport copy
Exhibit A-2. Copy of the Boarding passes (2 Nos.)
Exhibit A-3. Copy of the E-ticket dated 4.2.2015.
Exhibit A-4. Copy of the E-ticket dated 3.4.2015 from Vancouver to Whitehorse.
Exhibit A-5. Copy of the Return ticket from London to Delhi by the opposite party.
Exhibit A-6. Copy of the exit stamp.
Exhibit A-7. Copy of the property irregularity report.
Exhibit A-8. Copy of the E-ticket dated 3.04.2015 for the 2nd journey.
5) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
6) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
In the present case in hand, the complaint was filed under Section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complaint is regarding the delayed arrival of the flight of the opposite party in London and the delayed availability of the bus to reach the other terminal and thereby losing the connecting flight to Canada. The complainant purchased tickets for his Kochi-Mumbai- London Vancouver route journey. The flight reached London 20 minutes late than the arrival time mentioned on the ticket. Thereafter the bus meant for transferring the complainant from terminal 4 to terminal 2 where the flight to Canada was stationed was also delayed. Since the time gap between the London Flight and the Vancouver flight was only around 90 minutes and due to the delay, that occurred to reach London and delay happened in getting the coach to reach terminal 2, the complainant missed the connecting flight. Though the opposite party provided another ticket for traveling to Canada it was not materialized due to the fact that the ticket was not a confirmed one. Consequently, he was compelled to return to Kochi and procure a fresh ticket by paying Rs. 78069/-. He further lost the bus fare paid in advance to reach his destination from the airport. He had lost 7 working days.
The counsel for the complainant submitted that the evidence, in this case, consists of Exhibits A1& A8. The sole contention in the version is that there was a sufficient time gap of 90 minutes (para. No. 4) for boarding the connecting flight to Canada.
The counsel for the opposite party submitted that all the connecting passengers take the free inter-terminal transfer bus service operated by Heathrow Airport Limited and the buses operate every 6 to 10 minutes. The complainant has alleged that the coach meant for transferring him to the terminal also came late and hence the complainant was late when he reached Terminal 2. Air India and Air Canada have no tie up and hence Air India has no responsibility with respect to the delay of the coach used by the complainant. The complainant on his own volition used the said coach or the same was arranged by Air Canada. It merits mention herein that the complainant himself admits that over and above the alleged 20 minutes delay of the flight, there have been other factors also which led to the missing of the flight to Vancouver. The Opposite Party has not produced any documents to show that there was no delay in the flight from Mumbai to London since merely going by the averments in the complaint, it can be clearly seen that the complaint is bereft of merits. The complainant is not entitled to get any compensation as sought in the complaint. The complainant has not adduced any evidence to substantiate any of the claims in the complaint. Amount of Rs. 78,969/- for the fresh tickets purchased for the Complainant’s journey to Vancouver, and an amount of Rs.15,831.84/- for a flight ticket from Vancouver to Whitehorse. The complainant has not produced any material evidence to prove his case that a fresh ticket was purchased for his journey to Vancouver and then to Whitehorse from there, the second time around. Mere allegations to the effect that a certain amount has been spent on fresh tickets, shouldn't suffice in order to claim such a relief. No document has been produced by the Complainant in order to support his claims. Amount of Rs.2,112/- for the loss incurred for the bus ticket from Whitehorse to Watsons Lake. The Complainant has sought this claim without any basis or background. No details have been provided as to the whereabouts of the places mentioned. Not even an iota of information has been provided as to the purpose of the Complainant's visit to the location mentioned. The Complainant has not furnished any evidence to bear out the claim. Amount of Rs.33,600/- for the loss in salary for 7 working days. The Complainant has not substantiated his claim in a manner whatsoever. The allegations and averments are made without any basis. The amount claimed is arbitrary and unsubstantiated. The claim of the Complainant that there was the loss of baggage by the Opposite Party is bereft of any truth. One of the baggage under tag number A1012010 was delivered to the Complainant on 16th April and the second baggage under tag number A1012011 was delivered to the complainant on 4th of May. There is not even a whisper about the missing baggage in the argument notes of the Complainant. This comes to show that the Complainant had admitted the reception of the baggage. There is no deficiency of service on behalf of the Opposite Party and any averments to the contrary have been made without any bona fides and with the intention to harass the Opposite Party. Amount of Rs.50,00,000/- claimed towards the alleged mental agony and hardships suffered by the Complainant. The Opposite Party has not caused any mental agony or hardship to the Complainant, and any allegation to the contrary is incorrect. The Complainant missed the flight owing to his own actions and not due to the Opposite Party. The exorbitant amount of money being claimed stands as testimony to the fact that the relief has been incorporated without any basis whatsoever. The Complainant had not produced any documents in order to support the alleged monetary claims and the case of the missing baggage. The Complainant has been weaving a web of fabricated stories to unjustly benefit from an incident that the Opposite Party is not responsible for.
It is a settled position of law that the injured party has the burden of proof to show that there has been a breach of contract. In SGS India Ltd v. Dolphin International Ltd (2021 SCC On-line SC 879), it was held by the Apex Court that the onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in the complaints of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service. The Complainant in this case has not provided any proof of deficiency of service in support of the allegations. Except for the averments, the complainant had failed to prove his case by adducing sufficient documents to prove that deficiency of service is occurred from the side of the opposite party towards the complainant.
Hence, there is no merit in the complaint and the complaint is only to be dismissed and accordingly the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Commission this 19th day of December 2022.
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
Complainant’s Evidence
Exhibit A-1. Copy of the Passport copy
Exhibit A-2. Copy of the Boarding passes (2 Nos.)
Exhibit A-3. Copy of the E-ticket dated 4.2.2015.
Exhibit A-4. Copy of the E-ticket dated 3.4.2015 from Vancouver to Whitehorse.
Exhibit A-5. Copy of the Return ticket from London to Delhi by the opposite party.
Exhibit A-6. Copy of the exit stamp.
Exhibit A-7. Copy of the property irregularity report.
Exhibit A-8. Copy of the E-ticket dated 3.04.2015 for the 2nd journey.
C.C. No.272/2015
Order dated 19/12/2022
