BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complaint Case No  : 557 of 2009

Date of Institution :  22.04.2009

Date of  Decision   :  09.02.2011

Parvinder Pal Singh Bawa s/o Bawa Ajit Singh, #4681, Sector 70, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

….…Complainant

V E R S U S

[1]     Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Regd. Office 19, Reliance Center, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 38, through its Chief Executive Officer.

[2]     Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No. 145-146, 2^nd Floor, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

[3]     Internation SOS Service (India) Pvt. Ltd., 2^nd Floor, 2-B, Lotus Tower, New Friends Colony Community Center, New Delhi-65.

     2^nd Address:

     Internation SOS Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., Suite No. 605/606, 6^th Floor, Copia Corporate Suite, Plot No. 9, Jasola District Center, New Delhi-25.

[4]  Air India, 124 Cannuaght Circus, New Delhi – 110001, through its Chief Executive Officer.

                         ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:     SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA              PRESIDENT

SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI            MEMBER

          MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA              MEMBER

PRESENT: None for the Complainant.

         Sh. Yogesh Saini, Adv. for OPs No. 1 & 2.

           OP No. 3 ex-parte.

           Sh. R.S. Khural, Adv. for OP No. 4.

PER ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI, MEMBER

­­­­­­­

        Concisely put, the Complainant had to visit USA in the month of July, 2008 and purchased a ticket from Air India for overseas journey on 7.7.2008 from New Delhi to Chicago via Frankfurt. The first flight of Air India named as A1 137 was from New Delhi to Frankfurt (Germany) whose scheduled departure time was 7.30 AM and arrival time at Frankfurt was 12.25 p.m. and from Frankfurt to Chicago was another connecting flight of Air India as A1 127 whose departure time from Frankfurt was 14.15 hrs and arrival time at Chicago was 16.05 hrs. The time difference between these two flights were 1- 1½ hours. In order to take precautions during journey, he purchased a Reliance Travel Care Insurance Policy for a total sum of US$ 1,00,000/- from OP No.2, covering various other eventualities detailed in Para 2 of the complaint, besides missed connection, valid from 7.7.2008 to 7.9.2008, by paying a premium of Rs.3316/-. On 7.7.2008, at the time of Boarding at IGIA New Delhi, the Air India Flight No.A1 137 was delayed for approx. 3 hours and thus it was not possible for the flight to reach Frankfurt well in time for connecting another scheduled flight from Frankfurt to Chicago. Because of delay of initial scheduled flight from Delhi, the Air India put the Complainant in Air India Flight No. A1 111 from New Delhi to London and also issued Manifesto No. 0984500-172238 and also booked reservation in American Airlines in Flight No. AA 47 from London Heathrow to Chicago. The Airport Authorities also issued Flight Interruption Manifesto No. 0984500-172238 wherein the reason of issuing the same was clearly mentioned as “due to misconnection”. On reaching London, the Complainant again contacted concerned Airlines i.e. American Airlines Counter who issued the boarding Card for onward flight from London to Chicago in lieu of original Manifesto No.0984500-172238. Since the Complainant had already informed his relatives about his arrival time, but due to sudden changed schedule of air flights, he could not inform his relatives about the same, as a result of which his relatives visited the Chicago Airport as per the scheduled arrival time and after making enquiries left the place, due to which the Complainant had to take a separate and independent Taxi and spent another 550$ and reached his relatives house which was situated at 160 miles away. Since as per the Insurance Policy taken by the Complainant, there was a coverage of “Missed Connection”, so after arrival in India, the Complainant preferred a claim of 200$ on 15.11.2008 with OP No. 3 which handles the overseas claims against OPs No. 1 & 2.  On receipt of the claim, OP No. 3 sought some additional information with reference to the claim, which was duly provided to the said OP by the Complainant. The Complainant also informed the OP No. 3 that his claim was of “Missed Connection” category, whereas the OP No. 3 was processing the claim wrongly under “Cancellation of Flight” category. In response thereto, the OP No. 3 vide letter dated 29.1.2009 informed the Complainant that the required appraisal has not been submitted and hence, in these circumstances, the company would treat the claim as withdrawn. Surprisingly, on 20.3.2009, the OP No. 3 informed the Complainant that his claim falls in exclusion clause of Condition Benefit No. 13 under the heading “TRIP CANCELLATION AND INTERRUPTION” – Travel arrangements canceled or changed by an airline, cruise line, or tour operator, unless the cancellation is the result of bad weather and hence, claim was not payable. Hence, the present complaint has been filed, alleging the above act of OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, directing the OPs to pay in admissible amount of 200 USD to the Complainant on account of “Missed Connection” and further to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment caused to him.

2]      Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case. However, despite service, nobody has appeared on behalf of OP No.3. Therefore, OP No.3 was proceeded against exparte on 16.06.2009.

3]      OPs No.1 & 2 in their joint written statement/ reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case/reply, pleaded that the eventuality of missed connection was covered as per the terms and conditions of the policy. But, it was submitted that there was no coverage of the alleged additional expenses which the Complainant had to incur. No connecting flight was missed by the insured. The entire itinerary and travel route etc. was changed from the place of start of first flight only i.e. New Delhi. The insured was to reach Chicago via Frankfurt and instead he reached Chicago via London in another flight, the arrangement for which was done by the original carrier (OP No.4). It was further pleaded that after the processing of the claim of the Complainant, it transpired that the alleged additional expenses which the Complainant had to incur were not covered under the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. All other material contentions of the Complainant were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs.

4]      OP No.4 in its reply pleaded that the Complainant mainly alleged deficiency in service against OPs No. 1, 2 & 3 and that there was no specific allegation for deficiency in service against OP No.4.  It was admitted that Air India Flight No. A1 137 on 7.7.2008 from New Delhi to Chicago via Frankfurt was delayed and OP No.4 booked the Complainant on an alternative flight from New Delhi to London and then from London to Chicago, without charging any extra fare. The Complainant boarded flight No. A1 111 on 7^th July, 2008 from New Delhi to London and further boarded American Airlines flight from London to Chicago, as the arrangements were made by OP No. 4 for the connecting flight, which fact also stood admitted by the Complainant himself. All other material contentions of the Complainant were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs.

5]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

6]      Since none appeared for the Complainant on 09.02.2011, therefore, we proceed to dispose of this complaint on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) even in the absence of the Complainant.

7]      We have carefully gone through the entire case thoroughly, including the complaint and the relevant documents tendered by the complainant / OPs No.1 & 2 and OP No.4 (OP No.3 being ex-parte). We also heard the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the OPs No. 1 & 2 and OP No. 4. As a result of the detailed analysis of the entire case, the following points/issues have clearly emerged and certain conclusions/arrived at, accordingly:-

i]  The basic facts of the case in respect of the Complainant having booked an air flight from New Delhi to Chicago via Frankfurt, which was scheduled to depart from New Delhi on 7.7.2008 at 7.30 AM, so as to reach Frankfurt at 12.25 PM and for onward journey from Frankfurt to Chicago another connecting flight was to take the Complainant at 14.15 hrs, so as to reach Chicago at 16.05 hrs, have all been admitted. The only allegation of the Complainant against the OPs, mainly OP Nos. 1 and 2 is that since he had taken a Reliance Travel Care Insurance Policy from OP Nos. 1 and 2, covering various eventualities, besides missed connection, valid from 7.7.2008 to 7.9.2008, by paying a premium of Rs.3316/-, he is entitled to get reimbursement from OPs No. 1 and 2 for the extra expenditure, which he had to incur to the extent of 550 USD, against which he is claiming only 200 USD as per the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and that the said amount has not been paid by the OPs, despite his making a valid claim with them (Annexure C-3) and also sending a reminder (Annexure C-4). Finally, the Complainant also served a legal notice on the OPs (Annexure C-5), but his insurance claim for the missed connection has not been finalized as yet by the OPs. This has led to the present Complaint.

ii] OPs No. 1 & 2, which are the main parties in the case (OP No.3 being already ex-parte), while admitting the factual position of the case, pleaded that the missed connection was covered as per the terms and conditions of the Policy, but there was no coverage of the alleged additional expenses, which the Complainant had to incur, as no connecting flight was missed by the insured. Instead, the entire itinerary was changed by the original air carrier (OP No.4) from the place of start of the first flight only i.e. New Delhi. The insured was to reach Chicago via Frankfurt and instead he reached Chicago via London in different flights, the arrangement for which was made by the original carrier i.e. Air India (OP No.4). These OPs further plead that after processing the claim of the Complainant, it transpired that the alleged additional expenses, which the Complainant had to incur on account of taxi charges at Chicago (USA) for reaching his destination there were not covered under the terms and conditions of the Policy. Based on these grounds, these OPs have prayed for the dismissal of the Complaint with heavy costs.

iii] OP No.4, in it reply, has stated that there was no specific allegation for deficiency in service against it. However, it has admitted that the original Air India Flight No. A1 137 was delayed on 7.7.2008 from New Delhi to Chicago via Frankfurt and arrangements were made to book the Complainant on an alternative flight from New Delhi to London and London to Chicago, without charging any extra fare and finally, the Complainant reached Chicago, though a little late. On these grounds, this OP has pleaded for dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs.  

iv] On detailed analysis and study of the entire case, it is found that there is no doubt that the Complainant because of the late departure of the original Air India Flight No. A1 137 could not get the initially scheduled connecting flight at Frankfurt. Instead he had to take an entirely different flight to reach Chicago. Not only he had missed the original connecting flight at Frankfurt, but also the entire route for his flight from New Delhi to Chicago had to be changed on account of the initial delay in starting the original flight by OP No. 4.  As a result of all this, the Complainant says he had to incur a sum of 550 USD as Taxi Charges, as his relatives, who had come to receive him at the Chicago Airport had already gone back on account of the delay in reaching the flight after making due enquiries from the Airport. The Complainant also states that he had to travel 160 miles to reach his home destination in Chicago and against 550 USD spent by him, in the present complaint, he is only asking the OPs to pay 200 USD on account of missed connection as per terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy relating to missed connection, along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment and mental agony suffered by him.

v]  The only plea taken by the OPs i.e. OP Nos. 1 & 2 in support of their case is purely technical saying that this is not a case of missed connection, as the entire route itinerary and all other details were changed by OP No. 4 right from the beginning and hence, these OPs are not liable to make any payment on account of the missed connection. In our considered opinion, this is just a hyper-technical and wholly superficial and untenable justification given by the OPs to simply disallow the genuine claim of the Complainant which itself is deficiency of service on their part. 

vi] There is not even an iota of doubt that the Complainant had immensely suffered at the hands of the OPs. But since he is not making any specific allegation or preferring any claim against OP No. 4, the present complaint qua OP No. 4 is dismissed without any cost to any party.

Vii] So far as OPs No. 1 and 2 & 3 are concerned, there is definitely and surely grave deficiency in service, as well as unfair trade practice on their part in not allowing the genuine insurance claim of the Complainant, which he has preferred on account of the missed connection at Frankfurt midway during his journey from New Delhi to Chicago. The claim made by the Complainant is merely US $200 against total insured value of US $1,00,000/-, which is clearly so small and completely justified. 

8]      Keeping in view the above details, in our considered opinion, the present complaint has a lot of merit, weight and substance and hence, it must succeed. We, therefore, decide the complaint in favour of the Complainant and against the OPs No. 1, 2 & 3.

9]      The OPs No. 1, 2 & 3 shall, jointly and severally, make the following payments to the Complainant:-

(i) The OPs shall pay the rupee equivalent to USD 200 (US$ Two Hundred only) to the Complainant as part expenses incurred by him for taxi charges at Chicago Airport in USA on account of the delayed/ missed connection during his journey from New Delhi to Chicago, as the same is clearly permissible under the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy.

(ii) The OPs shall pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- for causing physical harassment, mental agony and pain to the Complainant, on account of his missed connection and other problems faced by him at the Chicago Airport, on account of deficiency in service by the OPs.

(iii)   The OPs shall pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- as litigation costs to the Complainant.

10]     The aforesaid order be complied with by the OPs, within a period of 30 days from the receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs shall, jointly and severally, pay the amounts as at (i) and (ii) in the foregoings, along with interest @18% per annum with effect from 15.11.2008 i.e. the date on which the Complainant had completed all formalities in respect of the insurance claim and submitted all relevant documents to the OPs, till the date of realization, besides paying the costs of litigation of Rs.7,000/-.

11]    Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, the file be consigned to the record room.

Announced

09.02.2011

                         Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

                    Sd/-                                          

                                (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

MEMBER

     Sd/-

(MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER