Delhi

New Delhi

CC/6/2014

Sh. Suranjan Bhattacharjee - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. The Austin Airlines - Opp.Party(s)

17 Dec 2019

ORDER

 

 

                   CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

                       (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

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

                                                           NEW DELHI-110001

 

 Case No. CC/06/2014                                            Dated:

             In the matter of:     

1.      Mr. Suranjan Bhattacharjee

S/o Late Sunil Bhattacharjee

 

2.         Mr. Digvijay Bhattacharjee

S/o Suranjan Bhattacharjee

 

3.        Mr. Devraj Bhattacharjee

S/o suranjan Bhattacharjee

 

All R/o F-43 A, DDA Flats,

G-8 Area Hari Nagar

New Delhi - 110064…… Complainants

 

        Versus

           

1.          The Austrian Airlines,

Having its registered office at

12^th Floor, DLF Building

10-B , CyberCityPhase – II

Gurgaon 1800102

Also at :

Hindustan Times Building

                 5^th  

18-20 Kasturba Gandhi Marg

New Delhi – 110001

 

2. M/s Dolphin Travels Pvt. Ltd.

Through Managing Director,

B-6 Above Axis Bank

Lajpat Nagar- II, New Delhi - 110024

                                                                                                        …….Opposite Parties

 

H.M. VYAS -  MEMBER

 

                                                            ORDER

 

The gist of the complaint is that the complainant approached  OP No-2 i.e. M/s. Dolphin Travels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, who advised them to take Austrian Airlines for going to Prague via Vienna and assured that the Austrian Airlines is one of the most comfortable punctual flights and they facilitate  their passengers in all respects. The same kind of assurance was also given by Austrian Airlines i.e. OP-1.  The complainants were assured that the flight reaches on time to Vienna where the connecting flight will be readily available as the available from Vienna to Prague is after one hour or so and there will no inconvenience to the complainants.

The complainants boarded the flight on 21/12/2012 at 02.25 hrs from Terminal III, Indira Gandhi International Airport, Delhi (copy of e-tickets filed). The flight took off on time and arrived  at Vienna at 0555 hours on time. The complainants after alighting from the flight, passed through the Security Check and Immigration Counter and approached the Counter to  board the Flight no. OS- 703 , Tyrolean Airways, being run and controlled by Austrian Airlines. The complainants to their utter shock came to know  that their flights had already taken off for Prague.  There was no responsible person of the OP-1  to tell and assist the complainants. It was the responsibility of the Ground Staff  at Vienna to make sure that the immigration check and security check is being  conducted and cleared on priority basis because of the timing of connecting flight. The complainants were told that  since they reached one minute late while passing through the immigration and the Security check, therefore they had to pay for the next Flight Euro 95 each to board the next flight which was scheduled after about 2 hours to Prague. The helpless complainants were forced to pay Euro 285 (Euro 95X3) to reach their destination. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of both the OPs complainant prayed for the amount of Rs. 10 Lacs as compensation.

The OPs were noticed and filed their respective written statement/version. It was submitted by OP-1  that the complainants failed to proceed to the gate of their onward flight on time after their security check and immigration. The fee was charged correctly for the rebooking the complainants to a later flight and accordingly, they were informed that no refund can be offered in this case. Further, the complainants were not diligent to realize the time constraints during the security and the immigration check and took it lightly and finally failed to reach on time to board the connecting flight to Prague. It is also stated that the complainant should have enquired from the OP-2 about the timing of the connecting flight  at the time of booking air ticket so that they could take care of the time limits during their security and immigration check at Vienna. The allegations against OP-1 are without substance. The levy of Euro 95 per ticket ( Euro 285) to take the next flight was in tune with the norms. It is, however, not denial that the ground staff of Austrian Airlines, New Delhi had issued boarding passes to the complainant up to Prague and it was not the duty of the ground staff by the Austrian Airlines to assist help and guide the complainants to pass through security check and immigration clearance. Prayer to dismiss the complaint has been made denying all allegations.

OP-2 was proceeded ex-parte after notice on 26/02/2015 as none appeared on their behalf. It is also noted that in the proceedings shows dated 20/03/2014, 28/04/2014,  28/11/2014, 26/02/2015. As per the memo of parties there are only two OPs namely 1 and 2. There are two addresses  of the OP-1 which seem to have been referred  as OP-1 & OP-2  in some proceedings viz dated 20/03/2014, 28/04/2014 and some other and the OP ( Dolphin Travels Pvt. Ltd.) has been referred as OP-3.  

The complainant and the OP-1 i.e. Austrian Airlines filed their respective evidence  by way of affidavit reiterating the stand taken by them in their respective pleadings. Both the parties  have addressed  oral arguments.

We have given due consideration to the material placed before us and the submissions of the parties.

The complainant has placed on record the copy of e-tickets as annexure A2 page 11 of the complaint.

Careful perusal of the same demonstrates that the arrival time of the flight no. OS-703 at Vienna is 0555 and the check-in time of connecting flight from Vienna to Prague is also mentioned as 0555 hours. In other words, the arrival time of flight  at Vienna and the latest check-in time of the flight taking off from Vienna to Prague is the same with no gap in between.

 The complainant themselves purchased the ticket opting for the said connecting flight,  wherein there was no time gap. It is obvious that to board the connecting flight the complainants were required to pass through security check and for immigration  clearance at Airport  which consumes some time. The complainants were, therefore,  aware about the said arrival / departure timings of both the flights.

In view of above, we do not find any deficiency in service  on the part of either of the OPs as the complainant themselves were aware that the there was no time gap between arrival of flight at Vienna and connecting flight to Prague as is evident from the e-ticket filed by the complainant. We hold accordingly, there is no merit in the complaint and as such the same is 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 on 17/12/2019

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

             File be consigned to record room.

 

 

 

                                                            (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                                                      PRESIDENT

 

      (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                                             (HM VYAS)

               MEMBER                                                                                               MEMBER