Delhi

New Delhi

CC/393/2008

Sunil Sood - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Austrian Airlines - Opp.Party(s)

08 Feb 2019

ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

                                       (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

                                   ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

                                                                                        NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.C.C./393/2008                                                          Dated:

In the matter of:

Mr. Sunil Sood

House No.305, Sector-37,

Faridabad-121003, Haryana.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        …Complainant

                                               

                                                            Versus

 

Austrian Airlines,

1^st Floor, Himalaya House,

Portion C-23, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,

New Delhi-110001

 

                                                                                                 …..Respondents

     ARUN KUMAR ARYA-PRESIDENT

 

                                                    ORDER

 

The gist of the complaint is that the complainant, a frequent flyer booked “return  air tickets” for travelling to New Delhi to Barcelona and return from the OP Airline. The date of travel to Barcelona was 31.08.2006 and return from Barcelona to Delhi was on 08.09.2006. At Barcelona the complainant had hectic schedule. The time of the departure of the flight from the Barcelona was at 6:40 AM on 08.09.2006. Accordingly, the complainant had to board the flight no. OS396W reached airport at 5 am on scheduled date. The OP’s issued two boarding passes at the time of check in with luggage, one for journey from Barcelona to Vienna and other for onward journey from  Vienna to New Delhi. Being exhausted due to day & night working, the complainant felt sleepy and so requested at the counter of the OP to awake/ alarm him to board the flight, if he is asleep. The representative of OP assured him that he need not worry and would ensure the complainant boards the plane.

            The OP was noticed.  The OP resisted the complaint & filed written statement/version denying all the allegations leveled by the complainant.  It is stated that the complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless un- sustainable in the eyes of law. The flight was scheduled to depart at 06:40 am on 08.09.2006. The complainant has admitted in the complaint that he slept after check in at airport and when he woke up around 7 am, the flight had taken off.   The complainant was himself responsible to board the flight and his own fault cannot be attributed to OP. Further, it is stated that the investigation revealed that the complainant was in a “Drunken Condition” which was confirmed from his breath/evaporation which left respondent’s Barcelona Airport Manager with no choice but to deny the boarding to him under Article 7.1.3 of “General Conditions of Carriage”.   As a result of this, the complainant’s luggage had to be off loaded causing 30 minutes delay to the scheduled flight,  inconvenience to passengers on board and loss to the airlines. The complaint is baseless and is liable to be dismissed .

            The complainant filed rejoinder to the OP’s written statement and also evidence by way of affidavit reiterating the text of the complaint. The OP also filed evidence by way of affidavit. Both the parties have filed their respective written arguments and also addressed oral arguments.

            We have considered the material placed before us and the arguments of the parties.

            The limited issue emerging out of the pleadings and arguments rests only on the allegations of the complainant   that the complainant checked-in time to board the flight and the representative of OP at airport did not awake him to board the flight despite request. It is not disputed that the complainant had slept after having checked-in for the flight. The complaint, however, did not disclose as to with whom he interacted and requested, as alleged, to make him awake. Nor such details were  argued on behalf of the complainant. In our considered view, the person going to board a flight and “checked in” is required to be vigilant and alert to board the plane. Such responsibility cannot be put by the complainant to any person allegedly some representative of OP. It is a common knowledge that modern airports are silent airport and generally no announcements are made. It is also not disputed by the complainant that his luggage was off loaded from the plane as also specifically mentioned by OP stating that complainants acts caused inconvenience to the passengers on board and delayed the flight by 30 minutes.

            In view of the above discussions, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the OP in given circumstances when the complainant himself was asleep. The complaint is, therefore, dismissed with no orders as to cost.

Copy of the order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required. 

Announced in open Forum  08/02/2019

The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

File be consigned to record room.

 

 

 

          (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                     PRESIDENT

 

               (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                              (H M VYAS)

                                MEMBER                                                               MEMBER