Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/14/101

R Gopikrishnan kottor nair - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shree Rohit Nandan,Air India - Opp.Party(s)

31 Mar 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

PRESENT

SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN      : PRESIDENT

 SMT.PREETHA.G.NAIR   : MEMBER

 SRI.VIJU.V.R                  : MEMBER

CC.NO.101/14 (Filed on : 01.10.2014)

ORDER DATED : 30.03.2022

COMPLAINANT

Dr.R.Gopikrishnan Kottor Nair,

TC 12/1716-1, “Manasasaras’, Kottoor Compound

Near Trivandrum District Co-operative Bank Limited,

Kunnukuzhi, Trivandrum – 695034

 

(By Adv.Sreevaraham N.G.Mahesh)

 

VS

OPPOSITE PARTY

The Chairman and Managing Director,

Air India, 2^nd Floor, Airlines House,

113 Gurudwara Rakabganj Road,

New Delhi – 110 001

 

(By Adv.V.K.Mohan kumar)

ORDER

SRI.VIJU.V.R        :MEMBER

The complainant has presented this complaint before this Commission under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, alleging that he had booked flight ticket in Air India AI-630 from Nagpur to Mumbai on March 8/3/2014, reaching Mumbai at 10.10 pm, followed by a connecting flight from Mumbai to Trivandrum in AI-667 at 6.30 hrs on March 9/3/2014, reaching Trivandrum by 8.35 am as per e-ticket issued by the opposite party. The time indicated on the boarding pass was 7.30 am, which was issued to the complainant by the opposite party, as the boarding time for flight AI-667 from Mumbai to Trivandrum. The boarding pass was issued from Air India ticket counter at Nagpur. On 9/3/2014 at around 6.10 am with more than one hour at hand before the due departure time printed in boarding pass the complainant underwent security check. When he reached the boarding gate it was seen as gate closed. When the complainant enquired about this he was told that the flight AI 667 has already left & the gate is closed. The complainant showed the opposite party’s officer the time indicated on the boarding pass stating that he came at the airport more than an hour earlier to board the airlines. There was no reply from the side of the officer of the opposite party. One of the officials of the opposite party told complainant that their occurred some system error. The complainant has some family appointments on Sunday afternoon in Trivandrum that was missed out due to the act of opposite party. He was later on given a circuitous flight with an extended layover of over10 hours, hence this complaint.               

2.       The Opposite party entered appearance & filed version. Opposite party averred that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The complainant was holding ticket with departure time clearly mentioned as 0630 a.m. As the first document of getting prepared for the journey is the ticket, passenger would have definitely noted the departure times of all flights and it is surprising that even after reaching Mumbai on the previous night, the departure time of Mumbai flight was not verified after the discrepancy was noted. Moreover Airport authority displays updated status of the flight viz, check in, security and boarding at multiple location at airport. It is strange that passenger missed all of them. Air India officials at Mumbai Airport had made all efforts to locate the passenger with seat no 10C ie Mr.Gopikrishnan through verbal announcement at the Gate as well as on the mobile number provided at the time of booking. As there was no response and flight could not be delayed to avoid consequential delay of other flight as per procedure, gat was closed at 0620 hrs. Air India offered the next available alternative to the complainant. As passenger was holding the cheapest fair ticket which was a special offer ticket same could not be endorsed to other airlines. The passenger accepted the offer of the opposite party to take the alternate flight from Mumbai to Chennai and from Chennai to Trivandrum. Unfortunately due to some error in the computer system in Nagpur the departure time was printed erroneously as 0730 hrs for departure ex Mumbai. However, Mr.Gopikrishnan was given the next best alternative and without any extra charges was accommodated in the flight from Mumbai to Chennai and Chennai to Trivandrum, his final destination. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Hence complaint may be dismissed with compensatory costs to the opposite parties.

Issues to be ascertained:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?
3.   Issues (i) and (ii)

3.           Both these issues were considered together for the sake of convenience. The complainant has filed proof affidavit in-lieu of chief examination and was examined as PW1 and has produced one document which was marked as Ext. A1. Even though opposite party filed affidavit in-lieu of chief examination they have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence. The complainant as well as the opposite party filed argument notes. It can be seen from Ext A1 that the boarding time was mentioned as 7.30. It is also admitted by opposite party that due to system error at Nagpur the departure time was printed erroneously as 7.30hrs.

     As per Sec.2(1) (g) of Consumer Protection Act 1986:-

             4.   Any fault, imperfection or shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service and includes-

1. any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person which causes loss or injury to the consumer; and
2. x x x x x x x x

So it is clear that opposite party was negligent in issuing the boarding pass. Due to this the complainant has suffered a lot.

           Hence we find that the complainant has succeeded in proving his case and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Since the first relief sought by the complainant does not come under the preview of this commission, it is discarded.   

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only) as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and pay Rs.2500/-(Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) towards the cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount except cost carries interest @ 9% per annum from the date of default till realisation.

                  A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

 

                Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30^th day of March 2022.

 

                                                                        Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN   : PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                     Sd/-      

  PREETHA .G.NAIR: MEMBER

 

                                                                                        Sd/-

VIJU.V.R     : MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Be/

 

APPENDIX

CC.NO.101/2014

List of witness for the complainant

PW1            - Dr.R.Gopikrishnan Kottor Nair

 

Exhibits for the complainant

 

Ext.A1         - Copy of Airline Ticket A1 667

List of witness for the opposite party - NIL

List of Exhibits for the opposite party- NIL

Court Exhibits                                   - NIL

 

 

                                                                                                            Sd/-

          PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER

DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU

 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

 

CC.NO.101/14

ORDER DATED : 30.03.2022