Kerala

StateCommission

A/12/837

EMIRATES AIRLINE - Complainant(s)

Versus

SIJU PAUL - Opp.Party(s)

SANDEEP.T.GEORGE

02 Dec 2016

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.837/2012

JUDGMENT DATED 02/12/2016

  (Appeal filed against the order in C.C No.93/2011  dt.31/072012 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam.)

 

PRESENT:

 

SMT. A. RADHA                                      :         MEMBER

SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR           :        JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

APPELLANT:

        The Manager,

      Emirates Airline Office,

      Building Kochi International Airport,

      Nadumbassary Airport P.O., Pin-683 111.

 

      (By Adv:  Sandeep George - M/s. George & George)                    

                        Vs

RESPONDENT:

            Siju Paul, Mandapathil House,

Cherkunnam, Ernakulam District –

Rep: by Power of Attorney Holder,

Baby Paul, S/o. Pally Pharmacist,

Mandapathi House, Asarnannoor Village,

Kunnathunadu Taluka, Pin-683 549.

(By Advs:  Abdul Shukkoor & T.N. Arunkumar)  

JUDGMENT

SMT. A. RADHA  :  MEMBER

          Aggrieved by the order passed by CDRF, Ernakulam in C.C.No.93/2011 the opposite parties came up in appeal.

          2.  The case in short is that on 25/4/2010 while travelling from Dubai to Cochin the Air Craft all on a sudden fell down  in an air pocket and the complainant sustained right clavicle fracture.  It is alleged in the complaint that the Pilot of the Air Craft can sense the air turbulences at least 100 meters in advance.  The opposite party failed to inform the passengers to take sufficient precaution which amounts to negligence of the opposite party.  Due to the incident the complainant had physical ailments and also suffered mental agony.  The complainant was admitted at a hospital at Chalakudy 40 kms away and treated for the fracture.  It is stated in the complaint that the complainant was advised to take rest for 4 months and sustained loss of income.  The complainant was working in a biscuit factory in Ireland and sustained financial loss of income.  The complaint is filed      to compensate the loss of income suffered by the complainant and also for compensation.

          3.  The opposite party admitted that the complainant and his family  booked a flight from Dubai to Cochin on 24/4/2010 in flight EK-530.  Due to bad weather condition the air turbulence occurred which was totally beyond the control of the opposite party and the complainant suffered some injury.  It is contended that the complainant did not adhere to the warning to keep his seat belt fastened.  The weather change and the air turbulence cannot always be predicted.  The opposite party is not denying the falling in air turbulence and contended that it is not due to the negligence of the Pilot.  The complainant was offered medical facilities in the nearby hospital but the complainant and his family preferred to avail in a local hospital nearby his house.  The other passengers took the medical assistance offered by the Airport Authorities.  The complainant had not produced any evidence to show that he had incurred loss of income.  The bills submitted by the complainant were only for Rs.764/- and the opposite party were ready to pay and reimburse medical bills.  Without opting to do so, the complainant approached the Forum Below for getting compensation for mental agony and also for loss of income.  No negligence can be attributed upon the opposite parties as the medical treatment offered was denied by the complainant and treated by himself and now raised the claim for compensation and loss of income which is to be dismissed.

          4.  The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the power of attorney holder of the complainant as PW1 and Exbts: were marked as A1 to A16.  No oral evidence or documentary evidence on the part of opposite parties.  On considering the evidence and documents the Forum Below allowed the complaint in part.

          5.  The counsel for the appellant argued that the Forum Below went wrong in allowing Rs.1,08,000/- towards the loss of his salary for six weeks without any proper documents.  It is submitted that the air turbulence occurred and the respondent sustained injury and the appellant was ready to pay the medical expenses on production of the bills which was not submitted by the respondent.  Without adhering to the instructions of the appellant the respondent straight away approached the Forum for compensation and loss of income.  No documents produced in evidence in the Forum particularly salary slip by the employer of the respondent in overseas.  The Forum Below merely relied on the Doctor’s certificate without the Doctor being cross examined.  The Forum found deficiency in service and allowed compensation of Rs.1 Lakh is also without any proper analysis.  Further argument is that the weather condition and air turbulance are beyond the control of the Pilot and the passenger is expected to keep his seat belt fastened on all times.  The appellant requested for the details in respect of his injury and also for medical bills. Except the bill for Rs.764/- the respondent had not produced any documents or evidence to show that he had incurred loss of income during the period of treatment if any.  Hence the order of the Forum Below in allowing the loss of income for 18 months is to be set-aside.

          6.  By resisting the arguments the counsel for the respondent submitted that due to the air turbulence the respondent got injured his clavical fracture and he sought for the medical aid from hospital nearby his house.  The incident took place due to rashness and negligence of the appellant.  The respondent sustained loss of income and also physical and mental agony.  The respondent was working in a biscuit factory in Ireland and was on holiday for one month and he came to his native place from Dubai to Cochin.  As per the medical certificate Exbts: A2, A3 the respondent sustained fracture (R clavical) which was treated with clavical brace and arm sling ®, analgesics and advised rest for six weeks with effect from 25/4/2010.  The respondent is drawing as on 24/9/2010 a gross pay of 328.70 Pound which is supported by the certificate issued by the Production  Manager of his Company wherein his weekly take home pay is 322.13  Pound.  The respondent joined duty only on 26/7/2010 evidenced by Exbt: A16.  It is also stated that the respondent was unable to work for  2 months following his one month’s holiday and joined to work on 26/7/2010.  Hence the contention of the appellant that the loss of income was not proved is not correct.  It is an admitted fact that the respondent had clavical injury due to the incident of air turbulence and admitting the incident the appellant is liable to pay sufficient compensation to the respondent.  Moreover the production of documents with regard to the joining of the respondent with the company was proved by Exbt: A16.         It  clearly shows that after the accident the complainant had been to work on 26/7/2010.  Admitting the fact that the complainant is on vacation for one month he travelled in the flight on 25/4/2010 and joined after 3 months in his company itself has to be inferred that the respondent had a loss of income for 2 months.

          7.  The facts being so, the Forum Below rightly found that the complainant had a loss of income and the loss calculated for six weeks amounting to Rs.1,08,000/- is reasonable.  Due to the accident the complainant had to suffer physical and mental pain and it is to be compensated sufficiently.

          In the result, appeal dismissed and we find no ground to interfere with   the order passed by the Forum Below.  The order is to comply within         30 days on receipt of the copy of the order.

The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Forum Below along with LCR.

 

 

 A. RADHA               :              MEMBER

 

 K. CHANDRADAS NADAR   :   JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     KERALA STATE CONSUMER

              DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, SISUVIHAR LANE,

VAZHUTHACAUD   

                           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

 

 

 

       APPEAL NO.837/2012

JUDGMENT DATED 02/12/2016

 

 

 

 

 

Sa.