Salt Lake, Kolkata-700091. ---------- Opposite Party
Present : Sri S. K. Majumdar, President.
Sri T.K. Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 1 8 Dated 2 5 / 0 3 / 2 0 1 0 .
The instant case arises out of the petition of complaint filed on 19.2.08 by (1) Shri Viswanth Tatia and (2) Mrs. Dayavati Tantia, both of 2, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata-13 against (1) M/s. United Airlines, C/o. Interglobe, General Sales Agent, Poddar House, 10, Marine Drive, Mumbai-400020 and at Thapar House, Ground floor, 124, Janpath, New Delhi-110001 and also at 228A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Land Mark Building, 1st floor, Kolkata-20 and (2) Dutche Lufthansa AG, Customer Relations Department, Kundandialog Deutchland, 33322 Gutersloh, Germany having their office in India at 56, Janpath, New Delhi in the name of Lufthansa German Airlines and at T2-8A, Millennium City, DN 62, Sector V, Salt Lake, Kolkata-91 with a prayer to (i) issue notice upon the o.ps. (ii) direct the o.ps. to pay US $ 7820/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainants for the latches and negligence on the part of the o.ps. (payment to be made in Indian currency as per exchange rate of Reserve Bank of India), (iii) give further relief or reliefs as the complainants are entitled to and (iv) costs.
Specific case is that the complainants purchased two air tickets for their movement from Kolkata to Atlanta (US) and back to Kolkata by Lufthansa German Airlines (o.p. no.2) and United Airlines (o.p. no.1) from o.p. no.2 who issued the tickets bearing no.016-4964253487-88 and 016-496425-3494-95 under reservation code no.3XZEZW on behalf of o.p. no.1 in economy class.
The traveling schedule of the complainants as per booking was from Kolkata to Atlanta on 19.7.07 and back from Atlanta to Kolkata on 25.9.07. However, the return schedule from Atlanta to Kolkata was later preponed to 13.9.07 and for that o.p. no.2 charged a fee of US $ 220 and issued receipt for this amount (Annex-copy of the electronic ticket for the return journey. In this annexure, it is evident that the wheel chairs for both the complainants were confirmed.
At the time of purchasing the two tickets, providing of two wheel chairs to the complainants at all the airports where they are to change the flights enroute to Atlanta were confirmed by the o.ps. as stated by the complainants, since both the complainants are old having their problems in their legs (annex-Dr. Mukhesh Karia’s certificates dt.14.7.07 regarding the complainants’ problems in their legs, c0opies of which are attached with the evidence on affidavit of the complainants).
But the o.ps. in spite of confirming that two wheel chairs would be provided at the airports of changeover of flights, only one wheel char was provided at Washington Airport and that too also against the payment of US Dollar’s of 10 to one Abdul of Airserve, though wheel chair was supposed to be provided free of cost to the deserving passengers.
In spite of the assurance of providing by o.ps. to cater Indian vegetarian food, the o.ps. have mishandled their special meal for which the complainants remained hungry for 30 hours (annex- E-Mail of Keshaw Kirhor dt.1.11.07 attached with petition of complaint).
The complainants stated that on 19.7.07 their journey was booked by flight no.LH751W from Kolkata to Frankfurt. The flight was delayed and it landed at Frankfurt airport two hours behind its scheduled time of arrival. The flight was operated by Lufthansa (o.p. no.2).
On 19.7.07 flight no.UA0917W scheduled to fly from Frankfurt airport to Washington airport was delayed and reached Washington airport six hours behind its scheduled time. The flight was operated by United Airlines (o.p. no.1).
On 19.7.07, the complainants were supposed to travel by flight no.US7419W operated by United Airlines (o.p. no.1) from Washington Airport to Atlanta Airport. But due to late arrival of the complainants’ Frankfurt flight, the connecting flight left and/or cancelled. Thereafter, arrangements were made for another flight which left Washington Airport at 23-30 hours. As a result, the complainants had to remain at Washington Airport for more than 7 hours and arrived at Atlanta Airport at 02-00 A.M. on 20.7.07 instead of arriving at Atlanta at 18-36 hours on 19.7.07, i.e. 8-00 hours behind the scheduled time of arrival.
Again on 13.9.07 the complainants were supposed to travel by Lufthansa (o.p. no.2) flight no.LH445 from Atlanta to Frankfurt which was scheduled to take off at 16-30 hours. But the same took off at 21-30 hours, i.e. 5 hours behind scheduled time. At Atlanta Airport none of the staff of the o.p. no.2 were taking care of the passengers. The complainants requested the staff of the o.ps. to cancel their tickets for the day’s journey and book it after 2 days as they were feeling uneasy, but they refused to do so.
On 14.9.07, the flight booked by the complainants was from Frankfurt to Kolkata by Lufthansa (o.p. no.2) flight no.LH750 which was a non-stop flight from Frankfurt to Kolkata. But due to late arrival of Atlanta flight, the flight no.LH750 took off without waiting for the Atlanta flight to arrive. In view of the situation, the arrangements were made by o.p. no.2 for the travel of the left over passengers of Atlanta flight by another flight no. LH760 which was bound for Delhi, scheduled to be arrived at Delhi at 23-00 hrs and thereafter to Kolkata by Jet Airlines flight no. 9W0901.
On 15.9.07, Jet Airlines flight from Delhi took off for Kolkata at 6-45 A.M. and arrived at Kolkata at 8-45 hours. For catching this domestic flight the complainants had to incur the cost of hiring taxi at their cost. Thus, due to negligence of the o.ps. the complainants had to remain at Delhi Airport for more than 7 hours, though the complainants were supposed to arrive Kolkata directly from Frankfurt. The complainants also stated that one of their booked baggage was found damaged due to water which was detected at Kolkata.
The complainants after returning to Kolkata lodged their complainant to the o.ps. vide their letter dt.29.9.07 stating their grievances in details and demanded US $ 5000 as compensation for their sufferings in the journey (annex-the letter dt,.11.10.07 attached with the petition of complaint).
In spite of several letters sent to o.ps. nothing excepting the proposal of o.p. no.2 to credit 3000 compensation miles to the complainants in order to conciliate the matter was offered (annex-the e-mail dt.25.10.07 of o.p. no.2 addressed to the complainants and letter of the complainants addressed to o.0p. no.2 dt.31.10.07).
On receipt of complainants’ letter dt.20.9.07, United Airlines (o.p. no.1) replied by their E-Mail no.6717625 dt.1.11.07 expressing regrets for the inconvenience caused to them and though offered to give to both the complainants travel vouchers worth US $ 350 each totaling to US $ 700, the complainants refused to accept it (annex-letter dt.3.11.07).
The o.p. no.2 stated in their E-Mail dt.25.10.07 that due to technical irregularities on which they had no control, the flights were delayed. They in order to cover up their faults offered the complainants to credit 3000 miles to each of them for the inconvenience caused to them.
The complainants refused their offer vide their letter dt.31.10.07 and asked the o.ps. to produce the certificates from the concerned Airport Authorities that their plane had technical faced snags on both the dates of their journey (annex-E-mail dt.25.10.07 of o.ps.).
The complainants refused the o.ps’ offer (annex- letter dt.31.10.07 of the complainant attached with petition of complaint). The complainant also asked the o.ps. to produce certificates from the Airport Authorities of the concerned Airport that their planes could not take off in time due to technical snags on both the dates of journey, i.e. the date of departure from Kolkata and the date of departure from Atlanta.
The Lufthansa Airlines (o.p. no.2) responded to the petitioner vide their E-mail dt.25.10.07stating that due to technical irregularities over which they had no control, the flights were delayed. In order to cover up the fault of delay, the o.p. no.2 offered to credit 3000 miles in their accounts. The complainants refused the o.p. no.2’s offer (annex-the complainants’ letter dt.31.10.07).
Thereafter, the o.p. no.2 without responding to the complainants letter, offered the complainants one way Cal-Frankfurt-MUC ticket converting the ticket from Economy Class to Business Class (annex- E-mail dt.22/11/07). But the complainants did not accept the offer (annex-their letter dt.23.11.07) stating that they were content in traveling in Economy Class and the complainants wanted only cash compensation for their sufferings damage of baggage contents, cost towards hiring of taxi, fooding and telephone charges and also refund of their air fares they paid for their journey in cash/or by travel coupons valid for one year. The o.p. no.2 refused to accept it (annex-their E-mail dt.26.11.07).
Hence, the case has been initiated by the complainants against the o.ps. u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986.
Decision with reasons :
Perused the pleadings of the complainants and the o.ps. the w/v of the o.p. no.2 and O.p. no.1, evidence on affidavit of the complainants, evidence on affidavit of o.p. no.2 and o.p. no.1, letter dt.23.11.07 of the complainants addressed to o.p. no.2, reply by o.p. no.2, written statements of o.p. nos.1 and 2 and documents on record.
From the documents, it is evident that the deficiency on the part of o.p. nos.1 and 2 have been acceded to by their e-mail dt.5.10.07 and 12.11.07 of United Airlines addressed to the complainants, e-mail dt.25.10.07 addressed to the complainants issued by o.p. no.2, e-mail dt.1.11.07 of o.p. no.1 the United Airlines in which they admitted their deficiency in respect of delayed flight and substandard food. Otherwise, they would not have offered the compensation in the form of various facilities to the complainants.
The United Airlines in their e-mail dt.12.11.07 stated that they due to delayed flight from Atlanta, arranged for the next available flight via Delhi, though the complainants purchased tickets for direct flight from Frankfurt to Kolkata Netaji Subhas International Airport. Owing to this, the complainants being suffered from osteoarthritis and knee operation respectively and senior citizens had been harassed and inconvenienced immensely.
In this respect, the judgment of Hon’ble NCDRC in the case of Ethiopian Airlines v. Naveen Singh Grewall may be noted in which the flight instead of landing at New Delhi on that day, flied to Addis Ababa, though the complainant was accommodated on another flight But nonetheless, he was inconvenienced vide NCDRC p.45 reported in CTJ Jan’10, P-V.
In the light of this judgment, there is no doubt that the complainants were inconvenienced immensely due to their disembarkment at New Delhi instead of Kolkata.
The statement made by the complainants that they asked for booking of two wheel chairs through out their journey cannot be disbelieved since it has been evident from the copy of their return ticket (annex-the petition of complainant) that two wheel chairs were confirmed. The arrangement of one wheel chair at Washington Airport for Mrs. Tantia only might be due to communication gap ot sheer negligence and callousness of the O.Ps. This apart, the complainants had to pay US dollar 10/- to one Abdul of Air Sarve for arranging one Wheel Chair at Washington airport though Wheel Chair for the deserving person was supposed to be provided free of charge.
The averments made in w/vs by o.p. nos.1 and 2 appears to be nothing but duplicity on their part, since they have already admitted their deficiency in service which was reflected from the e-mail dt.25.10.07 of o.p. no.2, e-mails dt.5.10.07, 1.11.07 and 12.11.07 of o.p. no.1.
The fact that the complainants embarked / boarded on the plane from Kolkata is sufficient enough to establish that this Forum has got jurisdiction to adjudicate the instant case. O.p. nos.1 and 2 are members of Star Alliance and on principal to principal basis. It is also admitted that the complainants purchased air tickets from o.p. no.1 through o.p. no.2. Hence, both are liable for causing harassment and sufferings to the complainants.
In view of the above consideration, it is held that the complainants succeed the case by their written and oral arguments.
Hence, ordered,
that o.p. nos.1 and 2 are directed to (i) refund jointly and/or severally the then cost of return journey from Atlanta to Kolkata (direct flight) in Indian Rupees which was not done by the o.p. in violation of the contract causing inconvenience to the complainants who are senior citizens and suffering from knee ailments within 30 days from the date of communication of this order to o.ps and in default, the amount will carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till its full recovery, (ii) to pay jointly and/or severally the compensation amounting to Rs.3,00,000/-/- (Rupees three lakhs) only for causing immense sufferings due to inordinate delay in taking off of the flight, substandard food and change of flight route within 30 days from the date of communication of this order and in default, the amount will carry interest @ 10% p.a. till its full recovery, and (iii) to pay jointly and/or severally litigation cost of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order and in default, the amount will carry interest @ 10% p.a. till its full recovery.
Fees paid are correct.
The case is thus disposed of from this Forum.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties on payment of prescribed fees.
_____Sd-_____ _____Sd-_______
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
