Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1033/2012

Dr. Maheshwar Prasad Joshi - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

06 Mar 2023

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VI

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

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

Case No.CC-1033/2012

 

Dr. Maheshwar Prasad Joshi                                      

15-B, E.C. Road,

Kabul House,

Dehradun -248001                                                       …Complainant

                                                Versus

Air India Limited                                                        

Airlines House,

113, Gurudwara Rakabganj Road,

New Delhi-110001                                                         ..Opposite Party

 

 

Quorum:                                                           

 

Ms. Poonam Chaudhry, President

Mr. Shekhar Chandra, Member

 

 

                                                        Date of Institution:         15.10.2012

                                                        Date of order:       06.03.2023

 

ORDER

 

Shekhar Chandra, Member:

 

The present complaint has been filed under Section 12(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short CP Act) alleging gross deficiency in service by Opposite Party (in short OP).

          The brief facts as set out by the Complainant, who is a senior citizen aged 72 years was invited in the month of November, 2010, by the Department of Religious Studies, Yale University, New Haven, USA to present his research titled : “The Articulation of Ideology and Power in Music and Ritual Traditions of the Central Himalaya: A Diachronic Study”. The Yale University, being the host institute, made arrangements for the Complainant’s transportation from New Delhi to New York and for the said purpose booked an Economy Class ticket for the Complainant with Air India, the opposite party.  AS there was a stopover at London, therefore, the complainant was booked with the Air India Flight No. AI 115 from Delhi to London (Heathrow Airport) and in Flight No. AAI 6335 (operated by Kuwait Airways-KU 101) from London to New York (John F. Kennedy Airport) against a PNR (HZ6HO). As is the usual practice, before boarding the flight No. AI 115, the complainant had checked in his luggage and accordingly, the boarding for the flight from Delhi to London was issued to the Complainant by the opposite party/Air India Airlines, which contained the luggage no. of the Complainant’s luggage.

          As per schedule, flight from New Delhi to London was to leave at 0725 hrs but it was late and departed at around 0900 hours and arrived at the Heathrow Airport, London on 2^nd November, 2010, but late of its scheduled time. As the time between the connecting flights AI 115 and AI 6335 (operated by Kuwait Airways) was only 3 hours and 20 minutes, the late arrival of the flight AI 115 did not leave much time for the complainant to collect his luggage and catch the connecting flight. The complainant alleges that when he went to collect his luggage from the collection point, he discovered that his luggage had gone missing. He immediately hurried to the counter of Kuwait Airways to enquire if his luggage had been delivered to them for onward transportation to New York, but to his utter shock and dismay, his luggage was not there either. He again rushed back to the luggage collection point, but could not locate his luggage anywhere. In the meanwhile, the complaint approached the nearby Air India Desk at the terminal but the officials of the opposite party/Air India refused to attend to his problems. This callous attitude shown by the officials of the opposite party resulted not only in loss of time of the complainant, but also  caused him immense harassment. At the Heathrow Airport, the only means of moving from one terminal to another, is to catch a shuttle bus (which nearly takes half an hour – to and fro). Therefore, while tracing the whereabouts of his luggage, the complainant lost considerable time moving from one terminal to another and as a consequence of that, ended up missing his connecting flight from London to New York.

 

          The complainant further submits that he was informed that the next flight of Kuwait Airways from London (Heathrow Airport) to New York was on November, 4, 2010 and he would have to wait for two days in London if he wanted to catch that flight.  The complainant could not have waited in London till 4^th November, 2010 as he did not possess the required Visa. He was informed that he could not stay at the Airport either, as it would be closed at night, this left him in a quandary. Finally, it was an official of Kuwait Airways who took pity on the complainant and helped him out of his misery.  The said official, through his mobile phone, contacted the Complainant’s host at the Yale University and made them aware of the complainant’s predicament. Immediately, the complainant’s host arranged for a ticket for the complainant on an American Airlines flight, scheduled to depart on the same day i.e. 2^nd November, 2010 for his onward travel from London to New York, by incurring extra expenses. The complainant states that the callous attitude, sheer negligence and deficient service of the officials of the opposite party resulted not only in loss of time of the complainant but also caused him immense harassment and made him to run from one terminal to another to trace his missing luggage.

          The complainant further submits that after getting no response from the opposite party officials, it was one of the staff members of American Airlines and the official of Kuwait Airways who helped him in lodging a complaint with the opposite party at the Heathrow Airport by requesting the opposite party to attend to complainant’s problems. Finally, at the instance of the officials of American Airlines and Kuwait Airways, the opposite party enter the complaint in their computer and told the complainant to contact the Luggage Department at the JFK Airport. On reaching JFK Airport, the complainant approached the concerned department to enquire about his missing luggage by producing his passport and air ticket with tagged luggage-folio.  Thereupon, the person attending the relevant desk at the JFK Airport on checking the complainant’s documents found the entry of the complainant’s complaint about his missing luggage. The official at the JFK Airport told the complainant, if the luggage found, he will be informed at the given address in USA and issued him a document called ‘File Locator – TVCNMG’. He further submits that when the complainant checked this documents, which contained counterfoil of the complainant’s luggage-folio number as fed into the system of the opposite party by its staff, the complainant noticed that the luggage number in the said document did not tally with the luggage-folio number tagged to the complainant’s luggage by the officials of the opposite party, at the IGI Airport, New Delhi; which was a serious discrepancy and must have accounted for the misplacement of the complainant’s luggage.

          It is further submitted by the complainant that due to physical stress caused by the officials of the opposite party, the complainant’s reputation was put at stake as all the books, research papers and electronic devices which contained his research data, meant for reinforcing his research presentation as well as for circulation amongst the scholars of international repute – who were coming to attend the International Symposium on Music and Religion in the Himalaya, Department of Religious Studies, Yale University, New Haven were lost as all were in the luggage – checked in with the opposite party. As a result of all this, the complainant could not deliver his lectures properly due to the lack of the supplementary research material and reference books which were required to be circulated among experts/eminent scholars from all over the world, during the course of the Symposium. Apart from the loss of research papers, the complainant also lost his personal belongings, which are mentioned in detailed in paragraph 13 of his complaint.

          Reply has been filed by the opposite party which has been perused by us minutely. Two main points have been raised by the learned counsel for the opposite party – namely (1) the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties  and the complainant should have also arrayed the American Airlines and Kuwait Airways as opposite parties to this complaint and (2) the opposite party is not responsible for onwards journey and loss of luggage as the Air India flight was only upto London and thereafter it was Kuwait Airways by which the complainant was to travel upto New York (USA).  

          We have perused the entire record and heard the learned counsel for the parties.  As regard the first point raised by the learned counsel for the opposite party that the complaint is bad for the non-joinder of the necessary party, the objection is not sustainable as it is the opposite party/Air India Limited who booked tickets – first from New Delhi to London and from London to New York. No doubt, the flight was Kuwait Airways but it was internal arrangement between the Air India and Kuwait Airways.  Infact both the air tickets bears the same PNR and ticket nos. issued by the Air India i.e. opposite party. As far as the second point raised by the learned counsel for the opposite party is concerned, the luggage were checked in and luggage folio tags were issued by the Air India from the IGI Airport, New Delhi. Therefore, the opposite party cannot be allowed to shift its stand and avoid the responsibility.

          After perusing the documents and evidence on record, we do not find any substance in the submissions of the opposite party.  Accordingly, the opposite party is directed to compensate the complainant for the loss suffered by him to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand) and further compensate the complainant for the loss of reputation, mental agony, harassment, negligence  and deficiency in service to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand).  The complainant shall also be entitled to legal expenses which are assessed to Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) to be paid by the opposite party within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order, failing which OP will be liable to pay interest @9% till realization.

The order be uploaded on the website of the Commission. Copy of order will be sent/provided to all parties free of cost.

File be consigned to record room with a copy of the order.

 

 

 

     Poonam Chaudhry

                                                      (President)

                                                             

 

 

Shekhar Chandra

                                                                                                       (Member)