Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/318/2015

M/s.Sujit Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Etihad Airway - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Sanjay Pinto

13 Jun 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   31.07.2015

                                                                        Date of Order :   13.06.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

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

PRESENT: THIRU. M.MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B. M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.NO. 318/2015

TUESDAY THIS 13^TH   DAY OF JUNE 2017

 

Sujit Kumar,

S/o. Mr. Kumaran Nair,

E-6, Cee Dee Yess Avenue,

4, Vandikaran Street,

Velacherry,

Chennai 600 042.                                .. Complainant

 

                                        ..Vs..

1.   Etihad Airways,

Rep. by its Manager,

Chennai Citi Centre,

Regus Business Centre, Level 6,

10/11, R.K. Salai,

Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.

 

2. Eithad Airways,

Rep. by its General Manager,

1^st Floor, Sunder Mahal,

141, Marine Drive,

Churchgate,

Mumbai 400 020.                                           .. Opposite parties.

 

 

Counsel for Complainant           :    M/s. Sanjay Pinto    

Counsel for opposite parties      :    M/s.  Rupa J. Tharayil    

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- towards cost of the air tickets and also to refund of the extra air fare of Rs.1,52,532/- and also to pay Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony, physical exhaustion, trauma, etc. and to pay cost of the complaint to the complainant.

 1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

          The complainant submit that he is the owner of a popular Media group in South India.   Every summer vacation, he travels abroad with his family to unwind and rejuvenate themselves after a hard year’s work.   The complainant planned a trip with his family and opted Emirates Airlines and made an online booking with the opposite parties flights from Chennai to Abu Dhabi and from Abu Dhabi to Zurich for four members of his family.   The complainant paid Rs.2,14,416/- towards the air fare to the opposite parties.    The complainant trip schedule from Chennai on  13^th May, 2015 and arrival at Abu Dhabi on the 14^th  May 2015 at 12.55 a.m. (Local Time), the connecting flight from Abu Dhabi was scheduled to depart at 2.05 a.m.  on the 14^th May 2015 and arrive at Zurich at 6.55 am. (Local time).  

2.      Further the complainant states that when he reached Chennai Airport along with his family at about 7.30 p.m on the 13^th May 2015 to board flight EY271 of the opposite parties scheduled to depart at 10 p.m.    He was shocked and disturbed to learn that the flight delayed and rescheduled to 1.00 a.m. next day morning.   The opposite parties failed to inform the complainant of this delay through a telephonic or an SMS message.   On repeated enquiry the officials of the opposite parties informed that the delay is due to technical snag and en-route travel arrangement were made i.e. Chennai to Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi to Rome, Rome to Zurich.  Had the opposite parties accommodated the complainant on this route, the damage to the holiday and business plans and financial loss could have been curtailed to some extent.     Further the complainant contended that in order to avoid such delay of 12 hours Journey the complainant requested the opposite parties  to make such arrangements of en-route through Geneva which was not accepted by the opposite parties.    Therefore the complainant  booked air tickets through Emirates airlines and paid extra  amount of Rs.1,52,532/-.    Accordingly the complainant issued a legal notice to the opposite parties on 5.6.2015 and the same was received by the opposite parties.    The opposite parties responded to the legal notice only on the 4^th July 2015 through an email in which they admitted that the departure of their flight from Chennai to Abu Dhabi was delayed and admitted that the complainant would have missed his connecting flight from Abu Dhabi to Zurich  that they offered to accommodate the complainant on another flight to Zurich via Rome  and offering a meagre refund of a mere Rs.8842/- for each ticket which is totaling Rs.35,368/-.   As such the act  of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service  which caused mental agony, physical exhaustion, tension and financial loss and hardship to the complainant.  Hence the complaint is filed.

3. The brief averments in  the Written Version of  the opposite parties 1 & 2    are as follows:

         The opposite parties deny all the averments made therein except those that are specifically admitted herein.    The opposite parties submit that the conditions of carriage of the opposite party as printed on the ticket and also available on the website of the opposite party and which forms as contract between the airline and the passenger clearly states that in the event of cancellation, or delay to a connection the carrier can re-route the passenger and the applicable article of the conditions of carriage are as follows:

^{9.2.2.1 Carry you and your Baggage at the earliest opportunity on another of our scheduled services on which space is available in the class in which you were originally booked without additional charge and, where necessary extend the validity of your ticket or}

^{Since the incoming flight from Abu Dhabi to Chennai was delayed due to technical problems that were circumstances beyond the control of the carrier this opposite party had made necessary arrangements to re-route the complainant and his family.  The opposite party also states that the complainant despite knowing fully well that no refund was permitted on the ticket and  filed this complaint.  Hence  there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Therefore  this complaint is liable to be dismissed.}   

4.      In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant had filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A23 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite parties  filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 marked on the side of the opposite parties.  

5.   The point for the consideration is:  

 

 

^{1.  Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- towards cancellation of air  ticket and a sum of Rs.1,52,532/- towards extra air fare paid to Emirates Airlines as  prayed for?}

 

2.  

 

^{6. Points 1 & 2}

   

         ^{Heard both sides, perused the records.  The learned counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant is the owner of a popular media group in South India.  He used to travel Abroad during summer vacation to unwind and rejuvenate his hard work of the year.    The complainant planned a trip with his family.  He opted  Emirates Airlines for such trip from Chennai to Abu Dhabi and from Abu Dhabi to Zurich and availed e. tickets Ex.A1 & Ex.A2.   The complainant’s trip schedule from Chennai on 13th May 2015 at 10.00 p.m. arrival at Abu Dhabi on 14th May 2015 at 12.55 a.m. (Local time), the connecting flight from Abu Dhabi to Zurich at 2.05 a.m. (local time) on the 14th May 2015 and arrive at Zurich at 6.55 a.m. (local time).  The total days of trip are two weeks.  The learned counsel for the complainant contended that complainant reached the Chennai Airport well in advance of three hours on 13th May 2015.}    

^{7.        After reaching the airport it was informed and displayed that there is a delay of three hours in taking of the flight.   Further the contention of the complainant is that the said delay was not informed to the complainant well in advance by the opposite parties either by way of SMS or by way of any other made thereby the opposite parties have committed deficiency of service resulting great mental agony, huge financial loss and unpleasantness in the trip.    On repeated enquiry the officials of the opposite parties informed that the delay is due to technical snag and en-route  travel arrangement were made i.e. Chennai to Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi to Rome, Rome to Zurich.   The contention of the complainant is that if he availed such en-route travel provided by the opposite parties there shall be delay of 12 hours in reaching the destination of Zurich; by that time the boarding and lodging arrangements made may be closed and there shall be several disruption and inconvenience.  But it is not denied that till reached the destination all the boarding and other necessities will be bound by the opposite parties.    But it is also very clear from the records that the flight will reach the destination within the reasonable time when the lodging and others were opened.}

^{8.       Further the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that in order to avoid such delay of 12 hours journey, the complainant requested the opposite parties to make such arrangements of en-route  through Geneva which was not accepted by the opposite parties.   Hence the complainant was constrained to take ticket through Emirates Air ways by paying Rs.1,52,532/- and reached the destination with six hours delay.  The learned counsel further contended that even though the opposite parties accepted to cancel the tickets and refund the amount in full and made an endorsement Ex.A22 they have not paid any amount.    But on a careful perusal of Ex.A22 it is seen that the complainant has not submitted any letter of cancellation to the opposite party duly singed and also the complainant utilized the same ticket for return journey.}  

                          ^{As per Ex.B3,  9.2.2.2.1 is as follows:}

          ^{Carry you and your Baggage at the earliest opportunity on another of our scheduled services on which space is available in the class in which you were originally booked without additional charge and, where necessary extend the validity of your ticket or}

^{Thereby the opposite parties within the reasonable time made alternative arrangements also.  Further the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the opposite party even though admitted to pay a sum of Rs.35,368/- towards four tickets  they offered to accommodate the complainant on another flight to Zurich via Rome on the 14th May 2015  offering a meager refund amount of Rs.8842/-  per person which amounts to Rs.35,368/- for four tickets has not been paid by the opposite party.  The learned counsel for the complainant contended that due to the delay of taking of the flight the complainant and his family suffered mental agony, put to great trouble and unnecessary taking fresh tickets in different flight i.e. Emirates Airways caused huge loss of amount of Rs.1,52,532/-.   But on a careful perusal of the records it is seen that the delay is due to technical snag.   As per Ex.B3 & Ex.B4 the opposite party provided en-route travel free of cost and offered as a good will gesture  but the complainant refused all these things and voluntarily took another flight Emirates Airways  and claiming huge amount is not fair and is against public policy.    Further the claim of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, physical strain, trauma, tension and financial loss suffered by him is imaginary.    The delay of flight is only due to  unavoidable technical snag, reasonable alternative arrangements also made, has not been availed by the complainant.}    

^{9.      The learned counsel for the opposite parties would contend that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties (i.e) Emirates Air ways.      Further the learned counsel for the opposite parties would contend that admittedly  three hours delay in taking of the flight.  As per Ex.B1 the delay is due to technical snag which is unforeseen.  The said delay of three hours has been displayed in the board.  The allegation that the delay is not communicated to the complainant is not acceptable, since all the passengers are duty bound to present before the airport alteast two hours earlier in order to avail boarding pass.  Hence the complainant does not know anything about the delay is not acceptable.   The learned counsel cited the decision reported in}

^{1. Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission}

^{Kingfisher Airlines Ltd}

^..Vs..

^{M.S.Ravishankar}

^{in F.A. No.495 / 20102.}

^{2. A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ayderabad}

^{Chelakara Ramaswamy}

1.  

^{Air Deccan Rep. by its Executive}

^{in F.A. No.532 / 2009}

^{Hence for the alleged delay in taking of the flight the complainant is not entitled to any compensation.Further the learned counsel for the opposite parties would contend that since there was a delay in taking of the flight due to technical snag as per Ex.B3 & Ex.B4, the opposite parties arranged alternative flight from Chennai to Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi to Rome, Rome to Zurich.The complainant requested the opposite parties to make arrangement for en-route flight from Chennai to Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi to Geneva, Geneva to Zurich, since further delay can be avoided.But on careful calculation the en-route flight arranged by the opposite parties and the requests made by the complainant shows only three hours difference.The opposite parties also suggested for good will gestureof Rs.35,368/-, but the complainant deliberately neglected.The complainant claim of Rs.1,52,532/- towards the cost of the flight tickets taken in Emirates Airlines on his own accord cannot be granted the complainant has not cancelled the ticket issued by the opposite partiesand has not availed the en-route flight provided by the opposite parties.Further the complainant availed the tickets from the opposite parties and claiming high value cannot be permitted.Further the allegation of suffocation during the return journey is not acceptance for the simple reason that the flight was stopped for refueling.Even though the Air conditioner is in switch off condition, the fan will be functioning.There shall be no suffocation under any circumstances.Further the learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that the claim of Rs.10,00,000/- towards mental agony, physical exhaustion, trauma and financial loss is unsustainable because the delay is caused only due to technical snag.The en-route travel flight has been arranged rightly at the earliest point of time by the opposite parties was totally neglected by the complainant and claiming compensation cannot accepted.The contention of the complainant is that the three hours departure delay caused disruption, disappointment; inconvenience and unpleasantness etc. are imaginary.There is no substantial evidence. The opposite parties also contended that the complainant completed his tour and returned India travelling in the opposite party flight.Hence the complainant is not entitled to any compensation.Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this forum is of the considered view that the complainant is not entitled forany compensation and the complaint is to be dismissed.No cost and the point is answered accordingly.}

^{In the result, the complaint is dismissed.No cost.}

  Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  13^h   day  of  June 2017.  

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainants” side documents:

Ex.A1- 25.4.2015  - Copy of complainant’s e ticket.

Ex.A2- 25.4.2015  - Copy of invoice for tickets on Airline of the opposite party.

Ex.A3- 13.5.2015  - Copy of Complainant’s e ticket print out of alternative

                              Airlines.

Ex.A4- 14.5.2015  - Copy of Complainant’s boarding pass.

Ex.A5- 14.5.2015  - Copy of complainant’s boarding pass.

Ex.A6- May 2015    - Copy of complainant’s Hotel reservation confirmation at

                               Hotel Helvetie,.

Ex.A7- 15.5.2015  - Copy of email from the complainant

Ex.A8- 15.5.2015  - Copy of email replies from the opposite party.

Ex.A9- 21.5.2015  - Copy of email from the complainant.

Ex.A10- 21.5.2015         - Copy of reply email from the opposite party.

Ex.A11- 21.5.2015         - Copy of reply from the opposite party.

Ex.A12- 21.5.2015         - Copy of email response from the complainant.

Ex.A13- 24.5.2015         - Copy of email from the opposite party.

Ex.A14- 26.5.2015         - Copy of email from the complainant.

Ex.A15- 27.5.2015         - Copy of email from the complainant.

Ex.A16- 28.5.2015         - Copy of email from the complainant.

Ex.A17- 1.6.2015  - Copy of email reminder from the complainant.

Ex.A18- 5.6.2015  - Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A19- 8.6.2015  - Copy of Indian Postal online Tracking sheet.

Ex.A20- 9.6.2015  - Copy of Indian Postal Online Tracking sheet.

Ex.A21- 4.7.2015  - Copy of reply notice.

Ex.A22- 13.5.2015         - Copy of full refund written endorsement

Ex.A23-       -       - Copy of relevant Extract from PRS India Website on the

                              Carriage by Air Amendment Act.

  

 

Opposite parties’ side document: -   

Ex.B1-  13.5.2015 -  Copy of the flight delay report and event report. 

Ex.B2-  13.5.2015 -  Copy of the flight delay report and event report.

Ex.B3-  -      -       -   Copy of Conditions of Carriage of opposite party.

Ex.B4- 6.8.2010    -   Copy of DGCA rules issued by Ministry of Civil Aviation.

 

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.