BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 18/10/2011

Date of Order : 21/12/2013

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

C.C. No. 574/2011

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. The case of the complainant is as follows :-

The complainant is a frequent traveller of the opposite party. On 12-05-2011, the complainant made an e-ticket booking for the flight No. GF-0270 from Bahrain to Cochin on 22-08-2011 at 20.15 with a return ticket from Cochin to Bahrain on 06-09-2011. At the request of the complainant, the opposite party changed the return journey from 06-09-2011 to 09-08-2011 on payment of an additional amount of 610 Saudi Riyals. On 22-08-2011 the complainant received a trip reminder e-mail noting departure time as 20.15. Accordingly, the complainant being employed in Saudi Arabia arrived at Bahrain Air Port with a single exit and re-entry visa on 22-08-2011 at 17.30. His main purpose of the visit was the meeting on 23-08-2011 at 10.30. a.m. with M/s. Technoflex Rubber Products , meeting at 2.30 p.m. with Director, District Industries Centre, Ernakulam, meeting with Chartered Accountant at 5.30 p.m. and also discussion with the doctor who is treating the complainant's mother at Little Flower Hospital, Angamaly. On 22-08-2011 at about 17.30, when the complainant reached at the air port with luggage of 40 Kgs. he was told that the flight is over booked and he could not be allowed to travel in the said flight. The complainant had to postpone his journey to 23-08-2011 and the complainant has lost a day and his valuable business hour. The complainant has been denied boarding pass due to the mal-practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. On 12-09-2011, the complainant caused to issue a lawyer notice demanding a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs. Despite receipt of the same, there was no response. The complainant is entitled to get Rs. 2 lakhs from the opposite party together with costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.

2. The version of the opposite party is as follows :-

The complainant booked for travel from Bahrain to Cochin in GF 0270 on 22-08-2011 and for return journey on 06-09-2011. The opposite party was constrained not to accommodate the complainant in the subject flight due to overbooking. It is admittedly an international practice followed by all the airlines for good and sufficient reasons. The denial of boarding occasioned due to circumstances beyond the control of the opposite party. The opposite party issued a miscellaneous charges Order (MCO) dated 22-08-2011 for 75 US dollars which the complainant has accepted towards compensation and signed the MCO. However, he did not encash the same. The opposite party also offered an additional sum of 75 US dollars on receipt of the legal notice. On 22-08-2011, the staff of the opposite party at the airport also rebooked the complainant to travel on the next flight GF 270 on 23-08-2011 and as a goodwill gesture upgraded the complainant to Falcon Gold cabin. There is neither deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. The complaint lacks merits.

3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A4 were marked. The witness for the opposite party was examined as DW1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows :-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs from the opposite party?

2. Whether the opposite party is liable to pay costs of the proceedings to the complainant?

5. Point No. i. :- It is not in dispute that the complainant was issued with a confirmed ticket from Bahrain to Cochin in the flight of the opposite party bearing No. GF-0270 on 22-08-2011. It is also not in dispute that the opposite party denied boarding pass to the complainant stating that the flight was over booked in spite of a confirmed ticket. Admittedly, the opposite party had made arrangements to travel on the next day that is on 23-08-2011 and upgraded the ticket from economy class to business class and also offered 75 US dollars by way of compensation. According to the complainant, he was forced to accept the above offer, since he had no other alternative, but to accept the same. The opposite party maintains that over booking of flights is a universally accepted practice and they have adequately compensated the complainant by providing seat in the next available flight that too an upgraded ticket together with compensation.

6. It is to be noted that the complainant was holding Ext. A3 single exit re-entry Visa that is a to and fro Visa issued to a foreigner. On denial of boarding by the opposite party, he had no other option, but to accept the offer to proceed with the journey otherwise he had to return to the country from he had started his journey. It is worthwhile to note that no explanation is forthcoming on the part of the opposite party as to the reason for denial of the journey except for the excuse that it is a universal practice among the airlines.

7. The Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Kuwait Airways Corporation Vs. Sushama Kashyap III (2012) CPJ 587 (NC) has held in para 6 and 7 as follows :-

“6. All these arguments have left no impressing upon this commission. The petitioner airlines has tried in vain to make brick without straw. There must be some cogent and strong reasons for refusing to issue the boarding pass. It is also surprising to note that suspicion was never specified. It rather exposes sloth and callousness on the part of the administration of Kuwait Airlines. It is clear that above said offices have handled the situation in a very maladroit way. They committed a flagrant error in refusing the boarding pass.

7. We are of the considered view that the compensation demanded by the complainant is already on the lower side. Since the petitioner has already used the ticket on 05-10-2004, therefore, she is not entitled to get the price of the ticket. To that extent, the revision stands accepted , however, the amount of compensation does not require any interference. This petition is partly allowed.”

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Consumer & Citizen's Forum Vs. Karnataka Power Corporation 1994 (1) CPR 130 has laid down that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act give the consumer an additional remedy besides those that may be available under the other existing laws. In the case at hand, the opposite party had sought to settle the grievances of the complainant in terms of the notional monitory loss suffered by him as per the relevant provision of Carriage by Air Act 1972. However, deficiency in service is writ large on the part of the opposite party in denying boarding to the complainant without any cogent reasons that too, when the complainant was holding a confirmed ticket for his travel. The complainant contended that he had missed valuable business meetings and the prior fixed appointment of his mother's doctor. However, nothing is on record to substantiate the same. Even if so, the complainant had to suffer lot of inconveniences and mental agony at the hands of the opposite party. The compensation offered by the opposite party is totally insufficient to abate the agony of the complainant. We fix the compensation at Rs. One lakh less the compensation already paid by the opposite party, if any.

9. Point No. ii. :- The primary grievance of the complainant having adequately been met, we refrain from awarding costs of the proceedings.

10. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part and direct that the opposite party shall pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) towards compensation as observed above.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the above amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. till payment.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 21^st day of December 2013.

Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.

Sd/- V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil

=========