Date of Filing : 12.02.2014
Date of Order : 25.02.2016.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L., : PRESIDENT.
DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II
C.C.NO.82/2014
THRUSDAY THIS 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016
J. Joseph,
S/o. Jebamalai,
16/36 Varghese Avenue,
Chitlapakkam,
Chennai 600 064. ..Complainant
..Vs..
Paul Arul Doss,
The District Reservation Manager,
Malaysian Airline System Berhad,
Arihand Nitco Park,
90, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai 600 004,
South India, ..Opposite party.
For the Complainant : Party in person.
For the Opposite parties : M/s. R.Mohammed Shahjahan & another
Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
ORDER
THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM PRESIDENT
1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:
The complainant had purchased confirmed air tickets for himself, daughter and two minor grand children to travel from Chennai to Kualalumpur on 05.11.2013 and return journey from Kualalumpur to Chennai on 16.11.2013 from the opposite party for Rs.24,714/-. Accordingly they travelled to Kualalumpur on 05.11.2013 without any complaint. But on 16.11.2013 the complainant reached airport counter at Kualalumpur for getting boarding pass for himself, his daughter and his two grand children, in the check in counter the senior officer after checking the tickets was told that the complainant’s ticket was not confirmed but the tickets for his daughter and his grand children were alone confirmed, as such suggested the complainant in a alternative flight which is going to Cochin. The complainant denying the said suggestion and was put to trouble by making discussion with the airline staff, complainant has to argue with his son-in-law who was present there by troubling himself which went for two hours then only the complainant and his family members were given boarding pass and allowed to travel in the flight to Chennai. The complainant further stated that the said flight was departure at 23.30 and arrived Chennai 00.10 A.M. on 17.11.2013. Contrary to the schedule time mention in the air ticket i.e depature in Kualalumpur 22.15 and Chennai arrival time 23.30, which is also caused hard ship and mental agony for complainant and his family members. The complainant as vehemently alleged that the above acts of airline staff at the time of getting boarding pass at Kualalumpur and delay of arrival of flight amount to deficiency of service on their part which had caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant, since the complainant was a senior citizen of age 71 years and claims of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation and litigation charges.
2. Written version opposite party is brief as follows:
The opposite party denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein. This opposite party admits that as mentioned in the complaint, the complainant has booked confirmed return air ticket for travel from Kualalumpur to Chennai on 16.11.2013 for himself and his said family members, but denies the allegation made against the opposite parties, in the complaint for deficiency of service and claiming compensation are all not proved and sustainable. Further that the flight that the complainant was holding a confirmed booking was over booked in anticipation of last minute cancellation or passenger holding confirmed booking not turning up (no show) for the flight which will offset the over booking and thus it would help to avoid flight going with vacant seats. Hence at times when there is either less or no last minute cancellation or all passengers holding confirmed booking turn up for the flight the airlines would look for volunteers who are willing to take alternate route via a point that is closer to their original destination with an offer of extra facility such as upgrade to higher class. On that basis Mr. J. Joseph (Complainant) was offered the alternate route via Cochin with an upgrade accommodation to business class. However seeing that the complainant was not keen on accepting the said offer, he accepted on the flight originally booked. As the schedule departure time of the said flight was 10.15 p.m. the complainant was checked in at 8.33 p.m. and he had reported for boarding at 9.34 p.m. Thus the complainant accepted to travel as per his original booking and he checked in giving him sufficient time to complete his travel formalities such as immigration and security check etc., As such there was no deficiency in the service or what so ever by the opposite party. The above facts were stated by this opposite party in his reply letter sent to the advocate of the complainant dated 16.01.2014. In fact this is normally being followed by all airlines carriers in the course of airline business service. Hence the same will not attract any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.
3. Further stated that the complainant alleges that the opposite party caused deficiency by delaying the time of landing at Chennai. However due to technical and air traffic control reasons the above said flight MH180/16.11.2013 was delayed for about one hour and naturally arrived at Chennai little beyond its schedule time. In this circumstance the allegation of the complaint is not sustainable. Further the said norms/procedures are also clearly enumerated in the Order of the Office of the Director General of Civil Aviation, Government of India, New Delhi, dated 06-08-2010. The copy of the same is filed herewith and the same may be read as part hereof. Therefore the opposite party did not cause the delay and hence may not be liable for any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant and the complainant is entitled to relief sought in the complaint and the compensation as such, the opposite party prays that the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
4. Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 were marked on the side of the complainant. Proof affidavit of Opposite party filed and Ex.B1 marked on the side of the opposite party.
5. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs asked for?.
6. POINTS 1 & 2 :
Perused the complaint filed by the complainant and his proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 were marked on the side of the complainant. Written version, proof affidavit and the documents Ex.B1 was filed on the side of the opposite party and also considered the both side arguments.
7. The complainant main grievance in the complaint against the opposite party is that the complainant having purchased the confirmed return air tickets, the act of air line staffs denying for giving boarding pass for the complainant and suggested for alternative flight which goes to Koalalumpur to Cochin and which was lead for prolonged discussion and argument between complainant and the airlines staff at Koalalumpur air port amounts to deficiency of service. In addition to that, the same the flight in which the complainant and his family members travelled and departure from Koalalumpur and arrived at Chennai not in accordance to the schedule mentioned in the air ticket and belatedly started and arrived at Chennai with delay of 1 hour which also amounts to deficiency of service, which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant, whereas the opposite party resisted the said allegation by saying that the complainant was not denied for getting boarding pass but due to normal practice and being followed by the airline carriers in the course of airline business for the alleged flight over booking was made, in order to avoid vacant seat in the flight on the eve of cancellation of confirmation ticket at the last minute, so the allegation made by the complainant that the booking of over booking itself, cannot be said unlawfull and deficiency of service, further considering the said circumstances as per the usual practice to find out the voluntary willingness of the passengers to chose for the alternative flight, the complainant was asked his willingness to choose Cochin flight in the usual course, but the complainant was not keen in accepting the said offer, the complainant was allowed to travel on the flight originally booked and necessary boarding pass was issued and necessary formalities was complied and the complainant was allowed for boarding the at 9.34 P.M. Therefore the contrary to this the allegation made by the complainant are not true and the complainant was not compelled or advised to choose Cochin flight. Considering the above contention made by the opposite party and the complainant was given boarding pass and was allowed to board in the flight at 9.45 P.M., it proves that as contended by the opposite party the complainant was only suggested and offered for choosing alternative flight which goes to Cochin instead of the flight originally booked by complainant with benefit of providing upgraded seat business class to travel in Cochin Flight. Further these facts are not denied by the complainant, Therefore as contended by the opposite party the complainant was only offered alternative flight on his willingness alone, since, the complainant has not willing he was allowed to travel in the original flight booked by him, such act of opposite party asking willingness of the passengers, is of the normal course of airline business and event of over booking is acceptable. Therefore we are of the consider view that the contention of the complainant that the above act of the opposite party’s staff at Kualalumpur amount to denial of issuance of boarding pass for his confirmed air ticket and completion on the part of opposite party to choose alternative flight which goes to Cochin which amounts to deficiency of service is not acceptable.
8. Further in respect of the another allegation that the said flight in which the complainant and his family members traveled was departure at Kualalumpur at 23.30 and arrived to Chennai on 00.1 A.M. against the schedule time 22.15 departure time and arrival time 23.30, The opposite party has not denied the said delay in arrival at Chennai, however contended, it is due to technical and air traffic controls, further the said delay cannot be said to be a deficiency of service, further it is permitted under norms and procedures enumerated in order of the Office of the Director General of Civil Aviation, Government of India, New Delhi, dated 06.08.2010.
9. On perusal of the said copy of the regulation in Ex.B1 under para 1.5 the airlines could not be liable to pay any compensation in respect of such delay in travel of the flight caused due to unavoidable circumstances attributable to Air Traffic Controls metrological conditions, security risks, or any other causes that are beyond the control of the airlines but which affect their ability to operate flights on schedule. Therefore we are of the considered view that the alleged act of opposite party towards the complaint mentioned in the complainant are all within the provision mentioned in the Order of the Office of the Director General of Civil Aviation, Government of India, New Delhi and not amounts to deficiency of service and the opposite party are not made liable for compensation is acceptable. Therefore we are of the consider view that the complainant is not entitled for any relief sought for in the complainant and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances the parties are ordered to bear their own costs. Accordingly the points 1 and 2 are answered.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to the Assistant transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the 25th day of February 2016.
MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
Complainant’s side documents :
Ex.A1- 30.9.2013 - Copy of E-ticket.
Ex.A2- - - Copy of Passport.
Ex.A3- 28..11.2013- Copy of letter from the complainant to the opposite party.
Ex.A4- - - Copy of Ack. Card.
Ex.A5- 2.1.2014 - Copy of legal notice.
Ex.A6- 18,,1,2014 - Copy of reply notice.
Ex.A7- 1.2.2014 - Copy of legal notice.
Ex.A8- - - Copy of Ack. card.
Opposite party’s side documents:
Ex.B1- 6.8.2010 - Copy of order of the office of the Director General
Of Civil Aviation, Government of India, New Delhi.
MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
