Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

124/2012

Dilip Thomas, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Emirates Airlines, - Opp.Party(s)

Anand Sasidharan

15 Jun 2015

ORDER

                                                                            Complaint presented on:  11.05.2012

                                                                                Order pronounced on:  15.06.2015

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.:           MEMBER II

 

MONDAY THE 15^th DAY OF JUNE 2015

 

C.C.NO.124/2012

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Mr. Dilip Thomas,

2, Lodhi Khan Street,

T.Nagar,  Chennai – 600 001.

                                                                                            ..... Complainant

 

                             Vs.

	M/s. Emirates Airlines, 12-13, Riaz Garden, Cathedras Garden, Kodambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 034.
	.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                           :18.05.2012

Counsel for Complainant                                 :Anand Sashidharan

Counsel for opposite party                               : Deepa Hari Govind

 

 

                                                                                                                                       

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.SC., B.L.,

This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.COMPLAINT IN BRIEF

          The complainant is a frequent traveller of the opposite party’s flight. The complainant had planned to travel to Antalya, Turkey on a personal visit and he booked ticket through the opposite party’s agent M/S. Mercury travels ltd, Chennai from Chennai to Antalya in business class via Dubai-Istanbul- Antalya and also return ticket in the same route. The complainant purchased total price of the ticket was Rs.1, 86,891/-. There was no problem on his onward journey. On return journey at Istanbul while check-in for the flight No.EK121 Istanbul–Dubai, he was informed in the counter that since he arrived early, he could take flight No.EK124, which departed at Istanbul at 16.30 hours instead of flight No.EK122 which departed at 19.25 hours. The complainant enquired with the staff of the Opposite Party by putting him in the early flight would it affect his onward journey from Dubai to Chennai and the staff concerned in the counter assured that there would be no problem and they would make necessary amendments and after that the complainant agreed and travelled to Dubai in flight No.EK124. After  sometime spending in the lounge at Dubai, the complainant after hearing boarding announcement in boarding flight No.EK544 to Chennai. The complainant produced the boarding pass issued to him at Dubai for the flight No.EK554 from Dubai to Chennai. The opposite party staff informed him that he is not allowed to board the flight as his name had been removed from the original list from Istanbul to Dubai in flight No.EK122. The complainant explained to the staff of the opposite party that he had already booked in business class to travel from Dubai to Chennai. The   opposite party refused to permit the Complainant to travel in Flight No. EK544 in the Business Class is amount to deficient in service. The behavior of the staff of the opposite party in Dubai caused great embarrassment to the complainant. After waiting for long time the opposite party’s staff informed the complainant that they could offer only middle seat in the economy section of the flight. The complainant purchased the business class ticket which is many times more than cost of on economy fare and hence he expressed his inability to travel in the economy class. The opposite party’s staff never expressed regret for their fault but on the other hand treated him very poorly. The complainant was forced  to wait in the airport till on  the afternoon of 22^nd May, 2010 and he left with no other option , he boarded the  flight No.546 to Chennai, that too he  travelled in economy class as there is no first class available in that flight. The opposite party not even offered any refund for the difference in fare. The complainant as per the schedule he has to be back in Chennai by morning of 22.05.2010 and he had not carried the medicine required to be taken by him and also he had not attended his scheduled  Meeting at 14 hours on the same day and that  caused stress, embarrassment and suffering which adversely affected  his business. Then the complainant approached the agent M/S  Mecury Travels Ltd., and  Ms.Radhika Bali, sent e-mail complainant with incorrect  particulars  and it has further shocked the complainant. Though the complainant was having the ticket for business class from Dubai to Chennai he was forced to travel in a economy class that too after undergoing ordeal at the hands   of the opposite party’s staff at Dubai Air Port establishes that the opposite party committed deficiency in service and therefore the complainant has filed this complaint claiming compensation of Rs.10, 00,000/- for deficiency in service, mental agony and sufferings with costs of the complaint.

 

 

2.WRITTEN VERSION IN BRIEF:     

          The opposite party admits that the complainant is a frequent flyer of their flight and he booked tickets through their travel agent to turkey and return to Chennai.  When the complainant arrived in an early flight from Antalya, the booking agent at Istanbul Airport suggested there was an early flight to Dubai and if he wished to travel on the same and further there would have been possibility of flight No. EK 122 being   delayed and after his consent the complainant was accommodated in flight No. EK 124 which left at 16.35 at Istanbul and the complainant arrived to Dubai. As a matter of fact the opposite party staff should have made changes in the booking, which they were apparently did not do and put him on the early flight without cancelling the later flight and unfortunately this lapse on the part of the ticket agent at Istanbul due to automatic cancellation all subsequent sectors got cancelled by the system. The boarding card could not have been issued till the seat confirmed. Unfortunately the flight in which the complainant booked the ticket was full in the business class excepting few economy seats were available and the same was offered to him he refused to travel. The opposite party’s denies that the staff of the opposite party at Dubai properly not replied. The complainant was accommodated on all   flight leaving which had business class seat and he was accommodated only in the economy class. The downgrades from First class to business class, there needs to be worked out a difference in the fare.   The process of working out the fare difference  sometimes only brings nominal differences if it does, since when rerouting a ticket a different set of fares applicable will apply, This can only happen if the ticket is put in for refund by the travel agent which has not been done till date. The opposite party counsel apologized   for the inconvenience caused to the complainant counsel and offered a free 1^st class ticket from Chennai to Dubai back and however the complainant wanted a ticket to London and back and this was not possible to them. The compensation claim in the complainant is excessive and unwarranted and the offer for a free ticket and 1^st class from Chennai to Dubai would have compensated the complainant and therefore he prays to dismiss the complaint.

3.POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION: 

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so  to what extent?

4.POINT:1

          The admitted facts are that the complainant is a frequent traveller and the member of the opposite party and the complainant planned to travel to Antalya, Turkey on a personal visit and for such travel he booked ticket from Chennai to Antalya in business class via Dubai-Istanbul- Antalya and also return ticket in the same route  through the opposite party agent M/S. Mercury travel ltd, Chennai  and   for the said travel he purchased ticket for a total price of Rs.1,86,891 and there was absolutely no problem during onward journey and also  return journey till Dubai and in the return journey at Istanbul the complainant arrived early and the opposite party made on offer to the complainant and accordingly  he took early flight and reached  Dubai.

          5. The opposite party in the written version as well as during the arguments,   the opposite party counsel fairly admitted that for the travel of the complainant from Dubai to Chennai his tickets were cancelled and the staff at Istanbul would have made arrangements not cancelling the entire return ticket i.e Dubai to Chennai and though the complainant purchased business class ticket he was accommodated in the next day flight  in an economy class and in the said flight there is no business class available and to that extend the opposite party has  committed deficiency in service. The complainant also argued   that the opposite party committed deficiency in service in not accommodating the complainant to travel as his original schedule. Therefore considering the above arguments it is held that the opposite party committed deficiency in service in not accommodating the complainant in the business class in flight No.EK544 to travel from Dubai to Chennai on 22.05.2010.

6.POINT: 2

The complainant committed deficiency in service in respect of cancelling the business class ticket of the complainant to travel from Dubai to Chennai and he was offered only economy class to travel to Chennai in spite of that he was having valid business class ticket. Further the complainant refused to travel the economy class and further his travel schedule was delayed because his business class ticket from Dubai to Chennai was cancelled which is a confirmed ticket and the opposite party delayed several hours his travel and also not arranged his travel in the business class and he was accommodated only in the economy class caused mental agony to the complainant is acceptable. The complainant claimed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and for mental agony and for the said  claim the complainant relied on the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission , Chennai in CC No.58/2010 and another order in  FA 348/2009.

          7.In CC 58/2010 the state commission observed that in Para 34 is that the complainant “ is  the Managing Director of some flourishing group of companies, and a man of high status in the business circle, and very often he goes abroad in connection with his business and he always travels by business class / 1^st class in flights, due to his advanced age of 70 years, and ailing from heat diseases, and has to be taken in wheel-Chair/Electric car while boarding the flight, and apart from physical discomfort”  and therefore the state Commission ordered the refund of the cost of the ticket and also ordered a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- towards compensation. In another case in FA 348/2009 the State Commission confirmed the compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- awarded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and also apart from that awarded further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation in both the case the status of the complaints were considered while awarding compensation in favour  of the complaints. The opposite party would rely on an order of the National Commission Reported   II (1993) CPJ 222 (National Commission) MAHANGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD., RAJA S. BHOSALE. We’re in it is held that the status of person has no          relevance while awarding compensation/ exemplary compensation and the nature of grievances and resultant loss as alone to be considered.

          8. The complainant in the National Commission Order is the former Judge of a High Court and he and his wife are   lawyers. Therefore national Commission held that though the status of a former judge cannot be considered, the only resultant loss as alone to be considered while awarding compensation. Therefore in this case in hand also the resultant loss and grievances of the complainant has to be considered while awarding compensation.

          9.In this case the  grievances of the complainant is that he was not allowed to travel in the business class in spite of compensation of valid  business class ticket and he was forced to travel only in the economy class and he was humiliated  by the staff of the opposite party at the Dubai Airport and he did not carry his tablets  as he thought that he would reach in Chennai as scheduled and  he has  also not attended the scheduled  meeting at Chennai and  no proof was filed  that  such a meeting was schedule  to be attended by the complainant. Further the complainant is a frequent business traveler and  such a person have not taken additional tablets and he expected that he would return  in time is not acceptable, for the reason that  as a frequent flyer he will aware that the flights or travel as schedule  only depends upon the weather conditions. No one knows that when the climate conditions would change. Therefore the contention of the complainant that he had not taken tablets with him expecting   that   he would reach Chennai in time cannot be reason that he suffered.

          10. According to the complainant he was humiliated by the staff of the opposite party at Dubai Airport and the same was denied by them. However, the complainant also did not claim different in ticket of business class and economy class either with the opposite party or in this complaint. Therefore the complainant is entitling for compensation for not accommodated him in business class from Dubai to Chennai. Considering the circumstances of the case and hand and the deficient caused by the opposite party it would be appropriate  to order a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- would met end of justice and accordingly this point is answered.

          In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is ordered to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakhs only)towards compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000(Rupees five thousand only) towards cost of the litigation expenses to the complaint. The above amounts shall be payable to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of payment.

Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 15^th day of June 2015.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

 

Ex.A1 dated 29.03.2010                   Ticket bearing No.ETKT 179770163505

                                                   Purchased by the complainant from the opposite

                                                Party (Annexure A)

 

Ex.A2 dated 21.05.2010                   Boarding pass for Flight No.EK 124 from

                                                 Istanbul  To Dubai in Business Class issued to            

                                                the complainant by the opposite party’s airline

                                                Counter at Istanbul (Annexure B)

 

Ex.A3 dated 21.05.2010                   First class Boarding Pass for Flight No.EK 544

                                                From Dubai to Chennai issued to the complainant

                                                By the opposite part’s airline counter at Istanbul

                                                (Annexure C)

 

Ex.A4 dated 09.07.2010                   Letter issued by M/s.Mercury Travels Ltd.,

                                                Bearing MAC 09/Jul/2010 dated 9^th July 2010

                                                To the Manager, Tamil Nadu, Emirates,

                                                Chennai (Annexure D)

 

Ex.A5 dated 09.08.2010                   Response issued by Ms.Radhika Bail, Customer

                                               Affairs Manager, India and Nepa;, Emirates Airlines

                                                To M/s/Mercury Travels Ltd. (Annexure E)

 

Ex.A6 dated 14.10.2010                   E mail dated 14^th October 2010 bearing

                                                MAA/X/RB/160710/6708401 issued by the

                                                Opposite party to the complainant (Annexure F)

 

 

Ex.A7 dated 10.05.2011                   Legal notice dated 10.05.2011 issued on behalf

                                                Of the complainant to the opposite party

                                                (Annexure G)

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY:

                                          NIL 

 

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT