PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

1.      Counsel for the petitioner present.  None for the respondent.  Respondent  has already been proceeded against ex-parte vide order of this Commission on 03.10.2013.  Sh. P.K. Daga, the complainant was to travel from Delhi to Kolkata and Chandigarh.  The complainant got a ticket booked from Chandigarh on 18.05.2011 for his travel from Delhi to Kolkata on 22.05.2011.  The said ticket was a confirmed ticket.  The departure time of the said flight of OP-Air India Limited was 10-15 A.M.  It was to reach Kolkata at 12-25 P.M.  The complainant arrived at Terminal No. 3 at around 9.00 A.M.  However, the complainant was not allowed to board the flight on the ground that the seat was not available.  Due to his repeated requests, alternative arrangement was made for another flight which was to depart at 4-30 P.M.

2.      The grouse of the complainant is that he could not reach Kolkata, in time, to attend his important business engagements.  Consequently, he filed a complaint before the District Forum with the following prayer :-

 “the opposite party may kindly be directed to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the loss suffered by him due to cancellation of the important meetings, mentioned above and Rs. 2,00,000/- for mental agony, harassment and humiliation suffered by the complainant and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation expenses which he has paid to his counsel for filing the present complaint, in the interest of justice. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the complainant.”

3.     The defence of the OP was that the complainant reached the IGI Airport at 9-00 A.M., yet, he failed to reach at Terminal No. 3 of the Airport and was a no show passenger till 9-30 A.M.  Consequently, his seat was released to another passenger as he failed to reach at Terminal No. 3 till  9-30 A.M. and the another passenger was accommodated at 9-40 A.M.

4.      The District Forum allowed the complaint and the OP/petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant on account of deficiency in service and Rs. 10,000/- on account of litigation expenses.  The District Forum also directed the OP to deposit Rs. 2,00,000/- with the State Legal Services Authority, U.T. Chandigarh.

5.      Aggrieved by that order, the OP filed an appeal with the State Commission.  The State Commission set aside the order in respect of the punitive damages in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- but retained the remaining order.

6.      We have heard the counsel for the petitioner.  He submits that the complainant did not reach the counter at all.  The doors of the plane are closed 45 minutes prior to the departure.  The complainant was supposed to arrive at the counter before 9-30 A.M.

7.      However, there are 2-3 defects in the complaint itself.  The complainant submits that he arrived at the Airport at 9-00 A.M. There is no inkling on the record, at what time he arrived at the Counter.  On the contrary, it appears that the employees at Counter waited for him till 9-40 A.M., thereafter another passenger was accommodated at 9-40 A.M. as per Annexure D-1.  The complainant did not explain how much important meeting he was to attend and with whom? Was it a matter of monetary loss?

8.      However, it may be mentioned here that the petitioner –Air India Ltd. admits that there was overbooking in the economy class of this particular flight and there were as many as 17 passengers who were “No Show Passengers” on the said flight.  Here appears to a mistake committed by the petitioner-Airlines.  Why the flight was over-loaded.  However, it has no bearing on this particular case because there is not even an iota of evidence to show that when the complainant had arrived at the Counter, to whom he had met at the counter or whether he had lodged complaint within the higher authorities available there. That evidence is missing which absolves the petitioner-Air India Ltd.  of the said deficiency. The order passed by the Fora below is not legally tenable.  The complainant failed to reach the counter at his own peril.

9.      Consequently, we allow the Revision Petition, set aside the order passed by the State Commission but there shall be no order as to costs.  However, the petitioner is directed to get refund from the complainant as per Law.