Delhi

New Delhi

CC/459/2011

Rekha Balani - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Travlin Style & Ors. - Opp.Party(s)

30 Nov 2019

ORDER

 

 

             CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

    (DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

    VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

                 CC. No./459/2011                                                                            Dated:

                 In the matter of:-

                Smt. Rekha Balani

                 120, Vinoba Puri

                  Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi-110024                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             …..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.           Travlin Style

Travel Agents for Domestic & International Air Tickets

D-74/4, Regal Buildings,

Behind Revoli Cinema,

Connaught Place,’

New Delhi-110001.                                                                 …… Opposite Party no. 1

 

2.           Lufthansa German Airlines Corporation

56, Janpath,

New Delhi-110001. .…… Opposite Party no. 2

 

3.          Lufthansa German Airlines Corporation

                  12^th Floor,DLF Building no.10

Tower-B, DLF City, Phase-II,

Gurgaon, Haryana-122002

                                                                                            .…… Opposite Party no. 3

                                                           

 

 

                                                        ORDER

            PRESIDENT- ARUN KUMAR ARYA

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant alongwith her husband took the flight of OP-2 &3 through OP-1, traveled from New Delhi to Toronto. Before the flight landed in Toronto, the complainant requested the personnel of OP Airlines to arrange for a wheelchair since she found it difficult to walk long distance from the aircraft to the exit. When the plane landed in Toronto the personnel of the OP-2 &3 did not make any arrangements for a wheel chair for the complainant, The complainant alongwith her husband was obliged to walk from the aircraft and when she came to the escalator, where she had a fall and sustained permanent serious injuries. The complainant has lodged the claim with the OP-2&3 and the same be rejected, hence, this complaint.

OPs were noticed and OP-1 never appeared in this Forum despite notices sent by this Forum and was proceeded with ex-parte on 26/09/2012.

 OP-2 & 3 were filed its written statement. It is stated on behalf of OP-2&3 that the present complaint is barred by limitation as the complaint had not been filed within a period of 2 years as prescribed under the Act. It is further submitted that the incident against which the present complaint was filed took place on 28/05/2007 and the complainant had filed the present complaint on 26/04/2012 and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed at the threshold as being time barred. It is further stated that the airlines cannot be held liable for any injury caused to the passengers in the airport and the OPs were not ever intimated by the complainant about her having difficulty in climbing down from the escalator, hence the complaint is frivolous and vexatious and liable to be dismissed.

Parties have filed their respective evidence by way of affidavit, we have heard      arguments advance at the bar and perused the records.

Perusal of the record shows that initially, the complainant had instututed earlier a suit titled as Rekha Balami Vs. Lufthansa German Airlines Corporation & Ors., at Ontario, Canada, before the Superior Court of Justice, dated 03/10/2008, vide Docket No. CV-09-378715. In the said suit the Hon’ble Court vide order dated 05/11/2010 dismissed the claim of the complainant on the ground being not maintainable in Canada.  Accordingly, the petition filed there as the litigation in Civil Court pursued diligently by the complainant and accordingly, the complaint filed before this Forum on 29/04/2011. Hence, the present compliant is not barred by the limitation.

Complainant has also placed on record the copy of ticket in which the facility of wheel chair has been confirmed. As per the affidavit , the complainant requested to the personal of the OP to arrange for a wheel chair but no wheel chair was provided to the complainant, who is 70 years of the age, even after confirmation of wheelchair on ticket, which amounts to deficiency. We therefore hold OP-2 &3 guilty of deficiency in services and directed as under :-

1. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 15,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 29/04/2011 till its realization.

 

2. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation litigation charges.

 

 

The order shall be complied within 30 days of the receipt of the order. If the said amount is not paid by the OP within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, the same shall be recovered by the complainant along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order till recovery of the said amount. This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). A copy each of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post. File be consigned to Record Room.

Pronounced in open Forum on  30/11/2019.

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                                                    (H M VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                                                                 MEMBER