BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT  HYDERABAD.

F.A. 1780/2007   against C.C.  336/2006,  Dist. Forum-I, Hyderabad.      

Between:

1)  Air Deccan

35, Cunnigham Road

Bangalore

Through Authorised Representative

2)  Capt. G. R. Gopinath

Managing Director

Deccan Aviation Ltd.

3)  Capt. K. J. Samuel

Executive Director

Deccan Aviation Ltd.

4)  S.N. Ladhani, Director

Deccan Aviation Ltd.

5)  Vijayamrit Raj, Director

Deccan Aviation Ltd.

All are R/o. 35, Cunnigham Road

Bangalore                                                   ***                           Appellants/

          .                                                                                       O.Ps.

                                                                   And

N. K. Panday, S/o. S. B. Panday

R/o. 3-6-158/5, Plot No. 21 

Laxmi Enclave, West Maredpally

Secunderabad.                                            ***                         Respondent/

                                                                                                Complainant

Counsel for the Appellant:                          Smt. Vijaya Sagi.

Counsel for the Respondent:                       M/s. A. Venkatesh

CORAM:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.

&

SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER

FRIDAY, THIS THE NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND TEN

ORAL ORDER:  (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President.)

***

1)                 The opposite party  airways preferred this appeal against the order of the Dist. Forum directing  them to   pay Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation besides refund  air  fare  and costs of Rs. 2,000/-.

2)                The case of the complainant in brief is that  he is working as Vice-President  and in the course of his employment he had to travel to Nagpur on 29.11.2005 to attend an important matter.  As per the itinerary  he had to fly  to Mumbai from Hyderabad  by taking  6.40 a.m. flight by  Jet Airways  and from Mumbai to  Nagpur he had to take flight  bearing No. DN 331 of the appellant  scheduled at  8.55 a.m.    While so on 29.11.2005  at about 4.30 a.m. when he was getting ready  to leave  for Mumbai  he received a call from  the appellants  at about 5.00 a.m. stating that the flight would be delayed by  one hour.    Later after waiting for many hours  he was ultimately informed that the flight  had been cancelled.     Due to which  all his official engagements were cancelled.  He sustained huge loss.  As he had no other alternative  he booked another ticket on  30.11.2005.  He was informed that the flight could not be taken off  at scheduled time.  They sent SMS  that it would take off at 1.00  or 1.30 p.m. instead of 8.30 a.m.    He flew to Mumbai by 6.40 a.m. flight to go to Nagpur by appellant flight.  Till 8.30 a.m. there was no message informing that the flight would be delayed.    However at 8.30 a.m.  they had informed that the flight was rescheduled  to   10.00 a.m.  However, in the meantime check in was started.  He was issued boarding pass  at 9.30 a.m.   The  flight schedule was changed to 10.30 a.m. and there after every half an hour  it kept on changing by 30 – 45 minutes.     At about 11.30 a.m.  security check in was announced.  He checked in  and waited for boarding  announcement.    At about 12.30  noon  they had announced that the flight was cancelled.    At about  1.30 p.m. it announced that the flight would go  up to Nasik.  In fact the  flight had to go up to Nagpur via  Nasik.    Vexed with their attitude he demanded for refund  of fare which they refused to do so.  They made an endorsement that it would be  paid at Hyderabad  where the ticket was originally  purchased.   Though he had requested them to issue a ticket for  the evening flight they refused to do so.   The whole day he was forced to spend time at Mumbai and traveled by engaging cabs to various airlines offices, travel agents etc.  and incurred expenditure of Rs. 1800/-.     Due to the conduct of appellants  instead of  staying for one day at Nagpur  he was forced to stay  up till 2.12.2005.  His entire programme  was up-set.    He claimed  Rs. 3,520/-  towards air fare,  Rs. 5,100/- towards hotel, Rs. 1,200/- towards  meals and other expenses, Rs. 1800/- towards taxi charges and  also claimed  Rs. 1 lakh towards loss and Rs. 1 lakh towards compensation for mental agony. 

3)                The appellants Air Deccan resisted the case.    While denying each and every allegation made in the complaint, it alleged that  on  29.11.2005 the flight took off  at Hyderabad and all the passengers  who booked in the said flight flew by the very same flight.    He did not report at the check in counter to board the flight  No. DN-331 on 29.11.2005.    Therefore his booking was cancelled without any refund  as per terms and conditions.   In regard to flight  on 30.11.2005  there was a slight change in the flight schedule due to some unavoidable circumstances  which were absolutely  beyond their control.    As per the terms and conditions  they had a right to change any flight schedule without intimation to passengers due to various  security and other technical reasons.    It is not  possible  to inform all the passengers  in advance about such changes.    Since the complainant himself missed his  flight  on 29.11.2005 he was not entitled to claim any of the amounts.    The  claims are exaggerated.   There was no deficiency in service on its part.   Therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4)                 The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A12 marked, while the appellants filed the affidavit evidence of its  Head-Legal and  got  Ex. B1 to B3 marked.

5)                The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that  the appellants airlines illegally  cancelled  the flight on 30.11.2005  from  Nasik to Nagpur  for whatever  reasons though according to the appellants  it was technical in nature, considering that the  respondent could not explain the cause of delay and cancellation of the flight without any reason  amounts to deficiency in service awarded a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- besides return of fare and costs.

6)                Aggrieved by the said decision, the appellants preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either the facts or law in correct perspective.    It ought to have seen that the flight scheduled to depart from  Mumbai to Nagpur via Nasik   could not take off  due to technical reasons  which were  beyond  their  control.    The report of  Dy. Quality  Control Manager, Delhi and Log book pages  would prove that it was beyond their control.    Various decisions held that  cases  of cancellation or delay in departure  due to bad weather or technical snag,  would not amount to deficiency in service.  Since it was a low cost airlines  awarding huge compensation of Rs. 50,000/-  is unjust.   Therefore they prayed that the appeal be allowed. 

7)                The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?

8)                It is an undisputed fact that the complainant  had purchased a flight ticket to travel from Mumbai to Nagpur  on 30.11.2005  in the appellant’s air flight No. DN-331.    The complainant alleged that due to non-intimation of cancellation of flight he was forced to spend two days  and spent amount  for boarding and lodging, taxi fares etc. evidenced  under  Ex. A9 wherein the officer of  appellant endorsed that he was entitled to full refund.  However, no amount was refunded despite endorsement.      Since his journey was not confirmed,   he was forced to stay at Nagpur  from 30.11.2005 to 3.12.2005 spending  Rs. 4,956/- vide Ex. A10. 

9)                Though the complainant alleges that he was forced to stay from 30.11.2005 to 3.12.2005  he could not show as to why he was made to stay for four days  obviously it is an official tour. It is not his case that no other flight  operated in the interregnum   The complainant did not  file any documentary evidence to show that  none of the flights  had taken off  in between those days. 

 No doubt  on 30.11.2005  the flight could not be taken off for technical reasons as per the appellants’ version. 

10)              When admittedly  the appellants could not arrange the flight, when one of its flight was unable to take off,  the  complainant was made to stay  unnecessarily.    The appellants allege that   on 29.11.2005 there was a technical problem  and the flight could not take off.  Equally so on 30.11.2005.  When consistently technical problems  were developed  and the flight was unable to take off, there was  no reason why  the very same flight  had to be introduced.    The  appellants admitted that it was not possible for them to inform  before hand  about the cancellation  of the flight.    If that were to be so, there is  no reason why  it had to take all these particulars of the complainant.  It cannot inconvenience  him on the ground that it cannot inform all the passengers.   For such latches  and consequential damage to the passengers  necessarily it  had to compensate. 

11)              Contrarily,  in the grounds of appeal  they mentioned  “that the ticket which the passengers are issued clearly  extracts these specific terms.   That the terms and conditions were brought to the notice of the complainants as derivable  from a specimen copy of the ticket attached.  In the present case also the complainant  at the time of booking provided their cell No. 9840072010  and intimation of the change in schedule much in advance  on two occasions was given to them.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants.”

12)              It is not as though the passengers would not understand  if cancellation of flight was due to unavoidable reasons like  security, bad weather, and technical snag in the air craft etc.    However, the so called technical snag  that developed on 30.11.2005 was not that they could not inform.   The learned counsel for the complainant contended that  as there was no occupancy  and commercially not viable  they cancelled the flight on the pretext of technical snag.    Admittedly on 30.11.2005  till  8.30  a.m.  no message was received by the complainant from the appellant  that the flight  would be delayed.    At about 8.30 a.m.  they intimated that it would be rescheduled  to  10.00 a.m.   It is not in dispute that the appellants had allowed check in, issued  boarding pass and intimated that it would take off  at 10.30 a.m. later  for every 30 – 45 minutes it  kept on changing.    At 11.30 a.m.  he passed through security check  and waited for boarding announcement.  Till 1.30 they did not inform that the flight was cancelled.    He was made to wait till 1.30 p.m.   Only at  1.30 p.m. they informed that the flight would go up to Nasik.  From Nasik to Nagpur they could not operate  on the ground that there was technical snag.    The complainant had reeled out his agony  in both days when he could not travel.  The appellants  did not bother to look into the difficulties of the passengers for such sudden cancellation.    It could have allowed the passenger in some other flight in order to see that no  difficulties are encountered by the passengers.    We are not satisfied with the explanation  of the  appellants that there was technical snag  at  Nasik and therefore they could not go up to Nagpur.    It could not file the technical reports as to when the said flight could depart from Nasik to Nagpur.   Had such evidence been furnished  this  Commission could have been in a position to state  whether the so called  plea that there was technical snag was genuine or not?    Ex. B1 ex-facie does not prove that the flight could not be  operated within a reasonable time.  It is not known as to the exact technical snag.    Therefore, we are of the opinion that the service of the appellants is deficient in this regard.

13)              Coming to the quantum of compensation, the  Dist.  Forum has awarded  Rs. 50,000/-.  The complainant did not file  any documentary evidence to show the amount of loss that had sustained by him when  he could not take the flight in time.    Ex. A10 shows that he spent three days at Nagpur, obviously not due to non-operation of that air craft on 30.11.2005.   If really  he was bent upon to attend an  important work he  could have  opted some other flight to reach Hyderabad.    Whatever be the loss that he had sustained  by way of compensation he cannot claim the entire  amount spent for his stay at Nagapur.  He was there on  his own official work.    Considering the nature of delay and inconvenience caused to the complainant  till such time  that he could take another flight including the expenses  that he incurred  for those days, we are of the opinion that  an amount of Rs. 20,000/- would be reasonable and modest.    Necessarily  the appellants had to  pay the air fare and costs awarded by the Dist. Forum. 

14)              In the result the appeal is allowed in part  modifying the order of the Dist. Forum by restricting compensation to  Rs. 20,000/- instead of Rs. 50,000/-. Rest of the  order  is confirmed.    Time for compliance four weeks. 

1)       _______________________________

PRESIDENT                 

2)      ________________________________

 MEMBER          

   Dt.    09. 04.  2010.  

*pnr