STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Rishampreet Singh R/o #2587, Sector 69, SAS Nagar, Mohali (Punjab).

….…Appellant.

V e r s u s

1.       Sri Lankan Airlines Ltd., No.312, 3rd Floor, World Trade Centre, Barakhamba Avenue, Connaught Place, New Delhi 110 001, India.

2.       M/s Airpak International, Cabin No.16, First Floor, SCO 71-73, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor, Mr. Rohit Badhwar.

              ....Respondents

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:   MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by: Sh.N.K.Mankotia, Advocate for the appellant.

               Sh.Shakti K.Pattanaik, Advocate for respondent No.1.

               Sh.Rohit Badhwar, Proprietor of respondent No.2.

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

1.              This appeal is directed against the order dated 10.02.2010, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant, (now appellant).

2.              The facts, in  brief,  are  that the  complainant got married on 19.10.2008, and in order to enjoy honeymoon outside India, he purchased a package tour of 8 days, from OP Nos. 1 and 2. The OPs, organized the entire package tour for 2 nights at Genting (Malaysia), and, 2 nights, at Langkawi (Malaysia), from 01.11.2008 to 07.11.2008, for two persons and charged Rs.76,000/-, including a sum of Rs.2,000/-, as taxi charges,  from Chandigarh to New Delhi International Airport. It was stated that problem arose on 6.11.2008, itself, when he and his wife, were not allowed to board the connecting flight, at Kuala Lumpur International Airport, despite the fact, that they had reached and reported before the actual departure of flight.  It was further stated that according to the fixed programme, they reached LCCT Airport at Langkavi, to catch flight No.AK6305, for Kuala Lumpur, from where they were to take the connecting flight UL 302 of Sri Lankan Airlines for Colombo. The said flight was supposed to take off at 12:50 p.m., on 6.11.2008, but the same was late by 1½ hours. Finally the said flight, took off, at 2:20 pm, and landed at LCCT (domestic airport), at 3:20 p.m. whereas, the take off time of flight No.UL 302, was 4:25 p.m. It was further stated that anticipating delay, the complainant, informed the staff of OP-1, and after getting down, reported at the counter at 4:10 p.m. i.e. before the departure of connecting flight, but still he alongwith his wife, was not allowed to board the plane. It was further stated that the complainant alongwith his wife,  ultimately, got the confirmed tickets for 8.11.2008, as the flights were full for 07.11.2008, and reached Delhi, on 9.11.2008, i.e. two days behind the schedule. It was further stated, that the entire problem occurred, due to the negligence of the OPs, as they should have anticipated the delay, in the connecting flights. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the OPs, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.

3.              In reply, OP-1, admitted that the complainant and his wife, reported after the closure of counter for flight UL 302, which they were to board on 6.11.2008.  It was further stated the complainant alongwith his wife reached the counter after 4:25 p.m., when the flight was ready to depart, and, therefore, they could not be accommodated.  It was further denied that the OPs, had a contract of package tour, with the complainant. It was further stated, that the itinerary was chosen by the complainant, after holding deliberations with the tour operator. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of OP-1, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining allegations, were denied, being wrong.

4.              OP-2, in its written reply, stated that the entire problem arose, due to delay in Air Asia Flight No.AK6305, from Langkavi, on account whereof the passengers were no-show for Sri Lankan Airlines on 6.11.2008. It was further stated that Sri Lankan Airlines, were not at any fault, in any case. It was further stated, that there was no liability of the Airlines, to entertain the no-show passengers. They were not even liable to accommodate the passengers, on the same tickets.  However, the answering OP tried to accommodate the complainant, on the same tickets, with no extra charges for 7.11.2008, but the flight situation was very tight, so it could only be confirmed for 8.11.2008. It was further stated that, if there was any deficiency, in rendering service, that was only on the part of Air Asia Airlines, which was not arrayed, as a party, by the complainant, in the present complaint. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of OP-2, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining allegations, were denied, being wrong.

5.              The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6.              After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and on, going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum dismissed the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

7.              Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

8.              We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

9.              The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, it was respondent no.2/OP-2, who was responsible for all the problems, which were faced by the complainant, and his wife. He further submitted that OP-2, through which, the package tour was organized, was bound to know that generally the flights get late. He further submitted that, OP-2, was required to inform them, before the tour was organized, that they should reach the Airport, at least 3 to 4 hours, earlier to the taking off/departure of the flight. He further submitted that, OP-2, was required to bring to the notice of the complainant, about the problems, which were required to be encountered by the complainant, and his wife, but the representative thereof did not at all do so, as a result whereof, a lot of physical harassment and mental agony was caused to them. He further submitted that, though, the complainant reached the airport 15 minutes, before the flight for Colombo, took off, yet he alongwith his wife, was not accommodated therein. He further submitted that the District Forum, was wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the OPs, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. He further submitted that the District Forum, was also wrong, in dismissing the complaint, on the ground, that Air Asia Airlines, was not made a party, and, if there was any alleged deficiency, it was only on the part of the said Airlines. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside.

10.           On the other hand, the Counsel for respondent No.1 and the Proprietor of respondent No.2, submitted that there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the respondents/OPs. He further submitted that since the complainant and his wife, reached the airport, only 15 minutes, before the flight for Colombo was to take off, they could not be accommodated. He further submitted that it could not be envisaged, before hand, by the OPs, that any flight, in which the complainant and his wife, were to travel, could get late, and, if so, for how much time. He further submitted that the District Forum, was right in holding, that Air Asia Airlines was not made a party and for its fault, the OPs could not be penalized. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.

11.           After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. In para 5 of the complaint, it was stated by the complainant, that flight AK6305 of Air Asia Airlines from Langkawi to Kuala Lumpur, was to take off at 12.50 p.m., on 6.11.2008, but it took off at 2.20 p.m. and landed at LCCT (domestic airport), at 3.20 p.m. It means that the flight took one hour to reach Kuala Lumpur. If the said flight had taken off, at the schedule time, at 12.50 p.m., it would have reached Kuala Lumpur at 1.50 p.m. The next flight from Kuala Lumpur to Colombo, was to take off at 4.25 p.m. Therefore, there was a gap of 2 hours and 35 minutes, between the two flights. It, therefore, could not be said, that the gap between the two flights, was short or the complainant and his wife, could not catch the next connecting flight. The OPs could not envisage, before hand, that any flight, in which the complainant and his wife, were to travel, would be late. OP-2, was also not required to tell the complainant and his wife, that they should reach the Airport, 5 hours, before the flight was to take off. Since there was sufficient time gap, between the two flights, as referred to above, there was no deficiency, on the part of the OPs, in making itinerary. The deficiency, in service, if any, was on the part of the Air Asia Airlines as their flight AK 6305, reached Kuala Lumpur late. However, Air Asia Airlines were not arrayed, as a party. For the fault of Air Asia Airlines, the OPs could not be penalized. The District Forum, was, thus, right, in holding so.The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct, are affirmed.

12.           The complainant had been given the complete itinerary, before he and his wife started from Chandigarh for onward journey. In case, the complainant  was not satisfied, with the same, and was of the view, that there would not be sufficient time gap, between the two flights, as a result whereof, he  and his wife, would not be able to catch the connecting flight at Kuala Lumpur for Colombo or that the flights generally get late, he was required to give the requisite instructions to OP-2, to confirm their seats, in some other flight, so that there could be sufficient time gap of 4-5 hours, between the two flights. In that event, OP-2, could confirm the seats of the complainant and his wife, in some other connecting flight. The complainant accepted the itinerary, given to him, and was satisfied with the same. Thus, he could not blame OP-2, for any alleged deficiency in service.

13.           It was for the complainant, and his wife, who were the passengers, to reach the Airport, in time. Sri Lankan Flight UL 302, was to take off at 4.25 p.m. As per the admission of the complainant, in the complaint, itself (in para no.4) he and his wife, reported at the counter at 4.10 p.m. In para no.6 of the reply, OP-1, however, stated that the complainant and his wife reached the counter after 4.25 p.m. The complainant was required to reach the counter atleast 2 hours, before the departure of the flight, so that the necessary security checks, could be carried out. The flight could not be delayed, only on account of the reason, that one or two passengers, did not show-of at the counter, in time. It was, thus, rightly a case of no-show. If the complainant reported, at the counter late, when the flight was already ready for take off, the OPs could not be held liable for any deficiency, in service. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in Vineet Khurana Vs. Bajaj Travels Pvt. Ltd.I(2008) CPJ 493 (N.C.). The District Forum, was, thus, right, in holding so.  The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct, are affirmed.

14.           Not only this, the complainant was accommodated by OP-1, in the next available flight, on 08.11.2008, without charging anything extra, as is clear, from para number 11 of the reply filed by it, though it  was not at fault, and the entire blame, lay on the shoulders of the complainant and Air Asia Airlines.  In these circumstances, the complainant was not at all entitled to any relief, claimed by him. The District Forum, was, thus, right, in holding so.  The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct, are affirmed.

15.           In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality, or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

16.           For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.3,000/- and the impugned order is upheld.

17.           Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

18.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

November 1, 2011

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Rg