In  the  Court  of  the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.

CDF/Unit-I/Case No.  29 / 2008.

1)           Sri Sanjeev Chopra,

Falt No. D4, 32, Ballyganj Circular Road,

Kolkata-700019.                                                               ---------- Complainant

---Versus---

1)           M/s. Thai Airways International,

229, A.J.C. Bose Road, Minto Park,

P.S. Bhawanipore, Kolkata-700020.                                 ---------- Opposite Party

Present :           Sri S. K. Majumdar, President.

                        Smt. Jhumki Saha, Member.

                        Dr. A. B. Chakraborty, Member

Order No.  3 0   Dated  1 2 / 0 5 / 2 0 1 1 .

Complainant Sanjeev Chopra by filing a petition of complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act on 1.2.08 has prayed for issuing direction upon the o.p. M/s Thai Airways International for reimbursement of Rs.1200/-, damage for harassment and mental agony of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost and any further reliefs as the complainant is entitled.

            Complainant being invited by All China Federation Of Supply And Marketing Cooperative at Beijing to deliver a speech of Indian Agriculture purchased a business class ticket from Laxmi Narayan Travels of 29 N.S. Sarani, Kolkata-87 and the o.p. is Airline Corporation wherefrom the tickets were purchased. Complainant wanted to avail himself of facilities of business class lounge at the airport, but as it was closed he faced inconvenience and also felt embarrassed because he was traveling on a diplomatic passport and so would not use places other than the CIP lounge and for which he was charged 1000 Bath equivalent to 32 USD. He paid nearly Rs.18,000/- more than economy ticket fare and one of the main consideration of paying such amount of money for having lounge facilities will always be extended to business class passengers and as he was deprived from enjoying such facility it amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the o.p. for which he suffered monitory loss of 1000 Bath equivalent to Rs.1200/- and being aggrieved he has filed this case with the aforesaid prayer.

            O.p. has contested this case by filing a w/v denying interalia all the material allegations against it alleging that the petition of complaint is false, frivolous and vexious and the complainant has suppressed the material facts etc. There specific case is that according to the provision Warsaw Convention of 1929 and Warsaw Convention as amended by Hague Protocol 1955 and amended on 15.5.1973 the business class lounge at Bangkok Airport was closed for routine cleaning between the hours 02 a.m. to 05 a.m. The lounge facility is open to all Thai International business class passengers during their waiting time except the time of cleaning and cleaning of the lounge is mandatory requirement for regular upkeep and maintenance as per international standard of air travel facility and this is done for sanitation and hygienic purpose for providing better facilities to passengers. The complainant had the opportunity to use the business class lounge for at least 6 hours before boarding is connecting flight to Beijing but he did not avail himself of that opportunity. So there is no deficiency of service on the part of the o.p. and it is a fit case that the prayer of the complainant should be rejected and on the contrary the o.p. should be awarded compensation u/s 26 of C.P. Act.

D E C I S I O N    W I T H    R E A S O N S

            There is no denial of the fact that the complainant purchased a business class tickets for his flight to Beijing and for the purpose he purchased tickets from the o.p. Only grievance and allegation of the complainant is that even in spite of payment of 1000 Bath which is nearly Rs.18,000/- more than economy class he could not enjoy the lounge facilities which are extended to business class passengers and according to the complainant it is definitely deficiency of service for which he is entitled to reimbursement of Rs.1200/- and adequate compensation viz. her Rs.50,000/- should be given to him.

            Complainant paid 1000 Bath is evident from annex-2.  We have perused the evidence of the complainant submitted on 24.6.09 and it appears that he has stated there that the lounge facility was not provided to him as the business class lounge was closed and as a result and finding no other alternative although he was holding diplomatic passport, was compelled to use other alternative lounge and according to him this amounts to deficiency of service because he had to pay 100 Bath for that. We have also perused the questionnaire filed by o.p. against the evidence of complainant and the replies given by complainant. Against the question no.6 i.e. “A business class ticket holder is entitled to some special facilities can you deny the same?” The answer of the o.p. is that “I cannot deny the same but the facility has to be within the consonants and purview of local airport’s norms and procedure”.

            It is the specific case of the o.p. that as per Warsaw Convention for the definite hour the lounge facility was closed for the purpose of cleaning in order to maintain health and hygiene condition properly. O.p. has clearly stated in his reply to the questionnaire filed by complainant on this point that “There is no requirement for any strict code of conduct rules for cleaning lounge. The cleaning time is fixed as per casual course of business. Is it not deviation from the provisions of Warsaw Convention?”

We have also perused the BNA submitted by o.p., wherefrom it appears that on the basis of Warsaw Convention 1929 and as amended by Hague Protocol 1955 they could not prov8ide the lounge facility to the complainant for the purpose of cleaning which they have categorically stated in heir w/v and it has also been specifically mentioned that the convention applies to all international carriage of persons baggage or cargo performed by the aircraft for reward. We have also perused the BNA submitted by complainant on 27.5.10 wherein he has categorically stated that the o.p. failed and neglected to produce any brochure in support of their contention that under the provisions of Warsaw Convention the lounge facility for cleaning purpose could not be provided to the passengers even of business class. So such provision was not put to the knowledge nor even communicated to the complainant. Ld. lawyer of complainant in support of his argument has referred to us one decision of Hon’ble National Commission reported in IV (2003) CPJ 114 (N.C). This decision relates to claim of damage by complainant who has right to sue the airlines for difference of air and damages for inconvenience suffered by him and wherein after valuable consideration it has been observed that the Warsaw Convention is not at all a bar to award compensation to t he passenger who has suffered due to deficiency of service of the airlines.

            No plausible answer except the provision of Warsaw Convention has been offered from the side of the o.p. that why the rest room was locked even in support of the fact that the complainant as a passenger of business class paid more Rs.18,000/- than economy class. Did he pay the more amounts unnecessarily? No denial whatsoever has been given by o.p. on this vital question. Even if we accept the Warsaw Convention we have already pointed out why it was not communicated by way of giving notice to the complainant that for cleaning purpose the lounge facility could not be extended to the complainant. No document whatsoever has been produced from the side of o.p. that at the relevant time the cleaning was actually done and for which the lounge facility could not be extended to the complainant.

Further the common prudence demands that even if any compliance with the Warsaw Convention certain hours is meant for cleaning purpose then there must be a substitute and alternative arrangement for the passengers where they can spend the time peacefully. But there was no such positive answer given from the side of the o.p. Therefore considering the facts, circumstances, evidence on record and legal position we are clearly of the opinion that he act of the o.p. by not extending the lounge facility to the complainant as a passenger of business class and paid Rs.18,000/- more than the economy class passengers the o.p. has committed the liability of deficiency of service for which complainant is liable to get a favourable order.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the petition of complaint is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. M/s Thai Airways International and the o.p. is directed to reimburse Rs.1200/- (Rupees one thousand two hundred) only and to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand) only making a grand total of Rs.24,200/- (Rupees twenty four thousand two hundred) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, failing which it will carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till full realization.

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties.

        _____sd-_______              _____sd-______                _____sd-______

          MEMBER                         MEMBER                       PRESIDENT