Delhi

New Delhi

CC/876/2014

Subhanshu Batra & Ors. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Air India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

29 Oct 2024

ORDER

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VI

(NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

Case No.CC-876/2014

IN THE MATTER OF:

1.        Mr. Sudhanshu Batra

            S/o Late Sh. H.L. Batra,

            R/o A2/20A, Princess Street

            Model Town First, Delhi-110009

 

2.        Mrs. Manika Batra

            W/o Mr. Sudhanshu Batra,

            R/o A2/20A, Princess Street,

             Model Town First, Delhi-110009

 

3.        Miss Suditi Batra

            D/o Mr. Sudhanshu Batra,

            R/o A2/20A, Princess Street,

             Model Town First, Delhi-110009

 

4.        Mr. Pramat Batra(minor) through

            Sudhanshu Batra (Father/natural guardian)

            S/o Mr. Sudhanshu Batra, R/o A2/20A, Princess Street,

             Model Town First, Delhi-110009

                        ...Complainant

VERSUS

 

1.        Air India

            Through its Customer Relation Manager,

             Safdarjung Airport,

            Aurobindo Marg,

            New Delhi-110003

2.        Air France,

            Through its Customer Relation Manager,

            Customer Service, 8th Floor, Tower No:- 8C,

            Cyber City, DLF Phase-11, NH-8,

            Gurgaon-122002

 

3.        Mirus Lyfestyle Services,

            230B,231,232&230A,

            Coronation Hotel Building,

             Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006,

 

…Opposite Parties

 

Quorum:

Ms. PoonamChaudhry, President

Mr. Shekhar Chandra, Member

 

                                                                        Date of Institution: 24.11.2014

Reserved for Order: 05/09/2024

Date of Order: 29.10.2024

 

 

ORDER

 

SHEKHAR CHANDRA, MEMBER

 

  1. The facts in brief of the case in hand are that the complainant No. 1 planned to visit Spain and France for his summer vacation with his family - complainants No. 2, 3 and 4 in June 2014.
  2. Opposite Party (hereinafter referred as OP) No.1 at the relevant time was an Air Line managed and controlled by the Government of India. OP No. 2 is the airlines of France having its office at New Delhi. OP No. 3 is the travel agent who booked the tickets for the complainant and his family members. As regard OP No. 3, it is arrayed as a proper party but no relief has been sought against them.
  3. It is submitted by the complainant No. 1 for self and on behalf of other complainants that he got prepared an itinerary through the travel agent i.e. OP No.3 and got their tickets booked online. The travel agent booked the tickets for all the complainants. The complainants were to depart by Air India at 13:15 Hours (IST) and reach Paris, France at 18:55 Hours (Paris Time).
  4. According to their Itinerary, the Complainants were to reach Madrid, Spain the same day; they were to depart for Madrid from Paris by Air France flight bearing # AF 1400 at 20:45 hours (Paris Time) which was to arrive at Madrid, Spain at 20:40 hours (Spain Time).
  5. Although the Complainants boarded the Al flight on time, on the 12th of June 2014, but the said flight did not take off till about 15:10 hours (IST). On repeatedly questioning the staff of the Al 143 flight the cause for the delay, the Complainants and other passengers were told that there was some operational/maintenance issue because of which the flight was being delayed. In fact the Captain of the flight announced during the said waiting period that there were some operational/maintenance issues which were causing delay in the departure of the flight. It is submitted by the complainants that the delay in the flight was occasioned for reasons which were in complete control of the air lines and were not beyond their control in as much as the operational issues/maintenance issues, if any ought to have been sorted out by the air lines well in time but they failed and neglected to do so. It is alleged that all the passengers in the flight felt very rest-less but heaved a sigh of relief when the flight finally took off at about 15:10 hours (IST).
  6. The complainants allege that due to the inordinate delay in the departure of the said flight, the Air India flight touched ground at Paris airport at about 20:10 hours (Paris time) and after taxing for about 20 minutes stopped at about 20:30 hours (Paris time). Since the flight was inordinately delayed and the complainants were to board a connecting Air France flight to Madrid, Spain departing at 20:45 hours (Paris Time), their anxiety level increased manifold and on their request the staff of the Air India flight permitted them to disembark before the other passengers. The complainants immediately disembarked at the Paris airport and rushed to the baggage section to pick up their luggage. The baggage arrived a little after 20:35 hours (Paris time) and immediately on lifting their baggage, the complainants rushed to the check-in Counter of AIR France for boarding their connecting flight No. AF 1400. The complainants reached the check-in counter of Air France within 10 minutes after lifting their luggage.            At first the Air France checked-in the complainants even issued Boarding passes but on reaching the relevant gate of their departure, they were informed that the flight had already left at 20:45 hours (Paris time) and that there was no other flight leaving for Madrid that night i.e. 12th June 2014. It is alleged that the complainants ran from Pillar to post trying to contact some official of Air India but could not trace anybody at the Paris Airport. In a foreign country, the Complainants felt extremely insecure and disturbed.
  7. The complainant no.1 then contacted the information desk at the airport, who directed them to go to the ticketing counter of AIR France. At the ticketing Counter, the Complainant no.1 was informed that they would need to purchase fresh tickets for the flight to Madrid which was taking off only the next morning. The complainant no.1 pleaded with the staff to compensate the complainants for missing the flight as they were not at fault and that they missed the flight due to the delay in arrival of the flight of Air India to Paris from Delhi. The staff of Air France denied any obligation on their part to compensate the complainants. It had become very late in the night negotiating with the staff of Air France, the complainants left with no option, thus the complainant no.1 purchased four fresh tickets for the following morning i.e. June 13, 2014 flight AF 1000 to Madrid Paris and paid a sum of Euro 340 (equivalent of INR 28,220/-). The Complainants also obtained boarding passes the same night and instructed the Airline Air France to transfer their luggage already checked in for AF 1400 to the new flight AF 1000.
  8. The Complainant no.1 submits that he was left in a most ludicrous & helpless situation, thereby he and his family checked into Ibis Hotel adjoining the Paris airport for the night of June 12, 2014. In fact, sufficient rooms were not available at the said Hotel or any other Hotel near the Airport and the Complainants had to settle for only one room accommodation for all four of them. The Complainants checked into the Hotel nearing Midnight and after eating dinner retired to their room. Since the Flight to Madrid the following day i.e. 13th June 2014 was at 07:00 hours (Paris time) in the morning, none of them could get any sleep and spent a very harrowing and torturous night at the             Hotel. The complainants had to incur an extra expenditure of Euro 163/40 (equivalent of INR 13,584.61).
  9. It is further submitted by the complainants that since they had planned their vacation, they had already booked all the Hotels in the cities that they were visiting. As they were supposed to stay in Madrid from the 12th June 2014 until the 16th morning, they had booked two rooms in Madrid Hotel called Hotel Petit Palace. On the night of 12th June 2014, after having purchased four new air tickets to Madrid from AIR France, the Complainants contacted the Hotel Petit Palace and narrated the entire incident and requested them not to charge two room tariffs for the 12th June 2104 night but in vain. In fact even after reaching Madrid the following day, once again the complainant pleaded with the staff of Petit Hotel to reverse the charges but with no result. It is stated that between 03:00 hours (Paris time) and 04:00 hours (Paris time) on 13/06/2014, the complainant no.1 received an email message on his mobile that a sum of Euro 198 (equivalent of INR 16,708.79/-) had been debited on his credit card towards tariff for two rooms for the night of June 12th, 2014 by Hotel Petit Palace, Madrid. The complainants felt completely miserable and cheated at the sequence of events narrated herein above. The complainant no.1 wrote a mail to his travel agent narrating the entire sequence of event and requested him to take appropriate steps for indemnifying their losses. The travel agent responded to the mails of the complainant no.1 and was advised to write to Air India demanding compensation, which he did. The complainant no.1 also sent a mail to air India demanding recovery of the loss suffered by them.
  10. Although Air India replied to the travel agent denying being their liability to compensate but no response has been received by the Complainant no.1 from them directly. It is contended by the complainants that Air India which was solely responsible for the delay in the flight, which caused loss and harassment to the complainants and now the Air India is trying to wriggle out of its contractual, statutory and other obligations to own up their responsibility and pay the Complainant's entitled amount.
  11. Since the complainants could not get their grievances resolved, they have approached this Commission through the present complaint case with the following reliefs:-
  1. Direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 58,513.40/- (Rupees Fifty Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Thirteen and Forty Paise Only) alongwith a sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Two lacs only) as compensation with interest @ 18% p.a. w.e.f. June, 2014.
  2. Any other order(s)/direction(s) which this forum deems fit in the interest of justice.

 

  1. After preliminary hearing of the present complaint case, notice was issued to the OPs. The OP No. 1 has filed it written statement/reply opposing the prayers of the complainants on the grounds inter alia that the Complainants have not come to this Commission with clean hands and has filed the present complaint with an intention to unjustly enrich themselves. It is submitted by the OP No. 1 that the Complainants have deliberately and purposefully not disclosed the true and material facts. It is further submitted that the complaint is not maintainable for the fact that there is no cause of action for filling of the same against the answering OP No.1 i.e. Air India. It is submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP-1 and therefore, there can be no cause of action for filling of the present complaint.
  2. It is submitted that the relief (if any) that the Complainants may be entitled to claim can be claimed (if at all) only from OP No. 3 who had made the itinerary and/or OP No. 2 Air line who despite issuing a Boarding Pass to the Complainants did not bother to hold their flight. The OP-1 states that it is common knowledge, that once a Boarding Pass has been issued it is the responsibility of the concerned Airline issuing such Boarding Pass to look for the passengers at the Airport, to contact them via announcements or other means and ensure that they Board the aircraft. It is for OP No. 2 to show and prove why it did not wait for the Complainants despite issuing them a Boarding Pass.
  3. It is submitted by OP-1 that the Complainants have not narrated the true facts of the             present case and therefore, the OP No. 1 craves leave to submit the facts in brief. It is thus submitted by the OP No. 1 that the Complainants were booked to travel on 12.06.2014 by the aircraft of the OP-1 bearing flight no. AI 143 (hereinafter from Delhi to  Paris and on 26.6.2014 via AI 142 from Paris to Delhi the Complainant were accordingly in possession of tickets bearing numbers 098/2109621680/681/683/685 for sectors DEL-CDG (Paris)-DEL. The schedule for the Complainants travel on 12.06.2014 was as under:

 

Date

Time

From

To

Arrival

Flight No.

12.06.2014

13:15

Delhi

Paris

18:55

AI 143

 

            The schedule for the Complainants travel on 26/06/2014 was as follows:

 

Date

Time

From

To

Arrival

Flight No.

26.06.2014

22:00

Paris

Delhi

9:35

AI 142

 

  1. It is submitted that the boarding of AI 143 commenced at 12:45 hrs and was completed by 13:30hrs. The flight departed at 13:49 hrs i.e. 34 minutes behind schedule. The OP-1 submits that the delay of 34 minutes was caused to provide connection to 32 passengers from flight Al 333 travelling from Bangkok to Delhi which arrived at 12:50 hrs. It is further submitted that the said delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the OP-1 since it was obligated to await the 34 passengers from connecting flight Al 333 who were to travel to Paris via AI 143.
  2. It is submitted that Flight Al 143 from Delhi to Paris landed in Paris at 7:50 pm Paris time on 12.06.2014 and the same is admitted by the Complainants in their E-Mail dated 13.06.2014. Further, the OP-1 states that the Complainants were to travel from Paris to Madrid on 12.06.2014 on Air France airlines flight bearing flight no.AF1400. It is further submitted by the OP-1 that the flight on which the complainants were to travel for their onward journey to Madrid, Spain was not a connecting flight of the OP-1 and as such there is no obligation between OP-1 and OP-2.
  3. The contentions raised by the OP-1 has been vehemently opposed and refuted by the complainants. It is argued by the complainants that had the flight owned by OP-1 departed at the right schedule, there was no occasion for the complainants to undergo so much mental agony, harassment, financial loss.
  4. OP-1 has also opposed the prayers of the complainants by filing a separate written statement/reply. It is submitted by OP-2 that the complainants are claiming grossly inflated claim of Rs. 58,513.40/- along with a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation with interest @ 18% per annum. The OP-2 further states that the OP-2 issued meal vouchers and also arranged hotel accommodations for all the four complainants for their stay in Paris; it also offered 150 Euros each towards the compensation as a gesture of goodwill, but the complainants refused to accept the same.
  5. However, the complainants have very strongly opposed the arguments of the OP-2. The complainants submit that they pleaded with the staff of OP-2 that their being late for flight was not in any manner attributable to them but OP-1 was solely responsible for the same, however, they were rudely asked to purchase fresh tickets for no fault of theirs.
  6. As regard to the liability of OP-2, it is further argued by the complainants that the staff of OP-2 issued boarding passes to the complainants for their flight. However, to the utter dismay the same flight had already left when the complainants reached the gates for boarding and at no point the complainants had been negligent and had been rushing to the gates throughout.  
  7. We have gone through the record and heard the arguments of both the parties. It is admitted by the OP-1 that there was delay on its part in taking off the flight. This is the sole reason for the complainants who could not get their next flight. This is further cause for spending extra money by the complainants for their stay. The OP-1 is a business carrier, it is its duty to keep in mind that any delay in taking off the flight may put the passengers in disadvantage position. One can understand that there can be delay in taking off the flight due to some technical reason like mechanical fault with the plain etc. but the delay for its business accumulation cannot be a penalty for the passengers who are already in the plain and paid for it.
  8. As regard the role of OP-2, a serious fault lies with them also. It is admitted by OP-2 that the boarding passes were issued for the flight which had already taken off. Had there been no fault of OP-2, the OP-2 would not have offered meal vouchers, hotel accommodations for all the four complainants for their stay in Paris and 150 Euros to each complainant.
  9. As regard OP-3, neither it had any involvement in the delay nor allegation of non-cooperation with the complainants. Further, the complainants have also not sought any relief against OP-3.
  10. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the matter, we are of the view that the complainants must be compensated for the loss and sufferings. It is, therefore, ordered that the OP Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally will pay an amount of Rs. 58,513.40/- (Rupees Fifty Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Thirteen and Forty Paise Only) to the complainants with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of journey till realization. A sum of Rs. 50,000/- each to the complainant is awarded as compensation for causing mental agony, harassment and financial loss. The complainants shall also be entitled to litigation expenses which are assessed to Rs. 25,000/-. The amount indicated above must be paid within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainants shall be entitled to enhanced interest @ 12% over the awarded amount of Rs.58,513.40/-. The total awarded amount shall be received by complainant No. 1 for himself and on behalf of his family members i.e. complainant Nos. 2 to 4.  
  11. In view of the directions as above, the complaint case is disposed of.  A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. This order be uploaded on the website of this Commission. File be consigned to the record room with a copy of this order.

 

 

                                                     [Poonam Chaudhry]

                                                            President

 

 

                                                       [Shekhar Chandra]

                                                                          Member

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.