STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                        UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

Air India (NACIL) through its Station Manager, SCO No.161-164, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

                                                .…Appellant/Opposite Party 

                                Vs.

P.K.Daga s/o Late Sh.Bansidhar Daga resident of 5, Merlin Park, Kolkata.

                                                …. Respondent/Complainant 

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh.S.R.Chaudhuri, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Respondent already exparte.

                                ---

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.                    This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.01.2012 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it allowed the complaint filed by the complainant and directed the Opposite Party (now appellant) as under:-

                “10]          It is important to mention that from the above observations we find a definite act of unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party. It is also clear that by indulging in such a practice, the Opposite Party is definitely causing loss to an unspecified as well as unidentified number of their customers. Hence, while proceedings under Section 14 (hb) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, we direct the Opposite Party to deposit Rs.2,00,000/- as fine with the State Legal Services Authority, U.T. Chandigarh.

                11]           Hence, in the light of above observations, the present complaint is allowed and the Opposite Party is also directed to pay Rs.25,000/- to the Complainant on account of deficiency in service and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

                12]           The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt; thereafter, the Opposite Party shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the amount of compensation of Rs.25,000/- only, till it is paid”.

2.                    In brief, the facts are that the complainant is registered with the Opposite Party as a frequent traveler under No. F 042152 (Golden Edge).  It was stated that the Complainant has to travel frequently by air between Delhi, Kolkata and Chandigarh. The Complainant on one such visit to Chandigarh got a ticket booked from Chandigarh itself on 18.05.2011 for his travel from Delhi to Kolkata on 22.5.2011. The said electronic ticket no. 985153224402 was subscribed for on 18.5.2011 and the same was confirmed for flight No.A 1762 departing on 22.5.2011 from Delhi at 10.15 Hrs. It was further stated that the said ticket was booked through M/s Sandal Travels Pvt. Ltd., SCO No. 83-84, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh by paying an amount of Rs.5902/- by cash. The confirmation number as provided by the Opposite Party was YS 833. The departure time of the said flight from Indira Gandhi International Airport, Delhi was 10:15 AM and it was to reach Kolkata at 12:25 PM. It was further stated that the complainant reached the Airport Terminal No.3, at around 9.00 A.M. on 22.5.2011. However, inspite of his having a confirmed ticket for the flight, the complainant was not allowed to board the same, on the ground, that the seat was not available. An endorsement to this effect was made by an employee of the Opposite Party on e-ticket receipt (Annexure Ex.C1). On repeated persuasion of the complainant, the Opposite Party made an alternate arrangement for him on Air India Flight No. AI-764 having departure time at 4.30 PM and its scheduled arrival at Kolkata was 6:40 PM. It was further stated that due to this act of the Opposite Party, the complainant failed to reach Kolkata, in time, to attend his important business engagements.  It was further stated that the Opposite Party was deficient, in rendering service, as also, indulged into unfair trade practice.  When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the “Act” only), was filed.

3.                    In the written reply, the Opposite Party stated that even if, it was believed, that the complainant reached the IGI Airport at 9.00 AM yet as he failed to report at Terminal No.3 of the Airport and was a “No Show” passenger till 9:22 AM, his seat was released to another passenger, he was put on a standby, and was allotted Seat No.10-A.  It was further stated that as the Complainant failed to turn up even by 9:30 hence the last passenger was accommodated at 9:40 AM as per Annexure D-1.   It was further stated 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. It was further stated that the Plane went with full loaded capacity and no airline would like to leave a passenger behind who had made full payment for the ticket.   It was further stated that, the Opposite Party was neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.                    The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.                    After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, allowed the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

6.                    Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant.

7.                    We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

8.                    The complainant stated in his complaint that he had confirmed ticket for 22.05.2011, the flight was scheduled to depart at 10.15 a.m. and he reported to the concerned authorities at about 9.00 a.m. i.e. one hour prior to the departure of the flight, but despite that he was not allowed to board the flight, on the ground, that the seat was not available. In support of his assertion, the complainant placed on record Annexure C-1 i.e. endorsement made by an employee of the Opposite Party, on the copy of e-ticket.  On the contrary, the Counsel for the Opposite Party submitted that the complainant did not report to the concerned authorities well before the stipulated time and the complainant was marked as “No Show” passenger and at 9.22 a.m. his seat was released to some other passenger.  The perusal of Annexure C-1 shows that though there was an endorsement allegedly made by an employee of the OP yet the same was not signed by him/her. However, we are of the view that onus was on the Opposite Party, to prove that the complainant was marked ‘No Show’ passenger as he failed to report to the concerned authorities, well before the time of departure of flight. The Opposite Party, however, failed to place, on record, any document, to prove as to what was the actual reporting time, for the passengers, for boarding flight, in question, departing at a scheduled time, and the complainant failed to report within prescribed time. Hence, in the absence of any tangible documentary evidence, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. Thus, the District Forum rightly held that the Opposite Party was deficient, in rendering service, to the complainant. 

9.                     Now adverting to the question of quantum of compensation, awarded by the District Forum, it may be stated here that the complainant had to suffer mental agony and physical harassment despite having a confirmed ticket, due to the negligence of the Opposite Party.  However, taking into account the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant, we feel that the amount of Rs.25,000/- on account of deficiency in service besides Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses awarded by the District Forum is justified to meet the ends of justice. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that the order awarding punitive damages to the tune of Rs.2 lacs and directing that the same be paid to the State Legal Services Authority, U.T. Chandigarh is not sustainable, in the eyes of law. From the record, it is not established that due to the aforesaid act of the Opposite Party, loss has been caused to a large number of unspecified, as well as unidentified customers, and, as such, it (Opposite party) is required to be penalized by directing it to deposit a sum of Rs.2 lacs as punitive damages, with the State Legal Services Authority, UT, Chandigarh. Accordingly, the order of the District Forum, to this extent, is set aside.

10.                 In the result, the appeal is partly accepted. The  impugned order  rendered by the District Forum  is modified as indicated above. The parties are left to bear their own costs. 

11.                 Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

12.                 The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.                                                                                      Sd/-

July 4, 2012                             [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER[RETD.]

                                                                                 PRESIDENT         

                                                                                                            Sd/-                                  [NEENA SANDHU]

                                                                                                MEMBER

cmg