Delhi

North East

RBT/CC/216/2022

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SINGAPORE AIRLINES - Opp.Party(s)

23 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

RBT/Complaint Case No. 216/22

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

		Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta R/o A 56 Main Road Budh Vihar, Phase I, Delhi-110086		Complainant
		Versus
		General Manager India Singapore Airlines, Taj Mahal Palace Hotel Apollo Bunder Mumbai 400001		Opposite Party
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		25.09.18 25.04.24 23.10.24

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Opposite Party.

Case of the Complainant                                                                 

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that Complainant stated that cause of action arose on and between 17 May 2018 and 22 May 2018 on the 4 flights taken by the Complainant for his travel from Delhi to Bali via Singapore and back. Since the tickets were purchased by the Complainant through a travel agency by the name of Virtual Holidays Pvt. Ltd. over a phone call and subsequently they were delivered to him over mail and physically at his address. Complainant paid Rs. 4,54,000/-for the services including travel to the destination and in house hospitality on the flight and the tickets were booked under PNRs- JRXCN7, Q2TDAT, ORCRCS & V85W5D. Thereafter on the journey Complainant and his family members were harassed by officials of Singapore Airlines and the mistreatment was an ongoing affair throughout the all segments of the journey.Complainant stated that despite repeated requests Complainant and his family members were denied seats next to each other and also representatives of airline at delhi airport asked Complainant and his family members to check in from different counters assuring that their seats would be blocked and allocated together which did not turn out to be the case. The Complainant requested basinets seats for his infant twin grand children which were not allotted as per request. Complainant stated that since the first phase of the journey, Complainant was given verbal assurances from the on board team that all the requisite care would be taken in the subsequent phases of the journey, no due diligence or even remotest of care was taken to ensure that things as basic as providing for basinets seats and vegetarian meals for a family of 13 people, a significant portion of the travellers on board the flight. Complainant stated that the onboard staff lacked even the basic courtesies to respond to requests of water and drinks on the flight and Complainant had to repeatedly buzz the onboard staff to get things he or his family needed. Complainant had paid a premium to book the flight but had to undergo biased and highly disrespectful behaviour of the staff.Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Party. The Complainant has prayed to furnish an unconditional written apology from the requisite authorities for the mistreatment subjected to Complainant and Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental harassment. He further prayed for Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation cost.

Case of the Opposite Party

2. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed written statement. It is stated that there is no deficiency on the part of Opposite Party. The Opposite Party further stated that the Complainant booking was made by 4 PNRs out of which only 2 PNRs i.e. Q2TDAT and ORCRCS were referenced as travelling together and these two PNRs were allocated seats next to each other on flight SQ403S, from Delhi to Singapore on 17 May 2018 prior to check in. The economy class cabin for flight SQ403 was fully booked and when the Complainant arrived at the check in counter, along with his family one hour before flight and there were very few vacant seats available as many other passengers travelling  had checked-in earlier and it would not have been possible for Opposite Party to accommodate Complainant’s request for all his family members to be seated together without changing seats allocated to passengers who had already checked in prior to Complainant’s arrival and Opposite Party is committed to treat its passengers equally. As the Complainant’s late check in, it was not possible to de-seat passengers who had either selected their seats prior to check in or had arrived earlier. Specific seats can be allotted together only if they are available and group seating is always required to be done prior to check in at the instance of passengers and there was no assurance at any point in time regarding seating furnished by Opposite Party to Complainant and his family members. The allegations have been denied by the Opposite Party. It is prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

5. In order to prove its case, Opposite Party filed affidavit of Sh. Kwan Shan, Manager Northern India with Opposite Party, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party and we have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties. None has appeared on behalf of Complainant to address arguments despite giving several opportunities.
7.  The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant and his family members were harassed by the officials of Opposite Party and they were denied the adjacent seats i.e. Next to each other. In this regard, the Complainant has not filed any evidence that they were entitled for this facility. It is also the case of Complainant that they were not provided with basinets seats for two infants. In this regard, the Complainant has also not filed any evidence. It is also the grievance of the Complainant that they were not served vegetarian food. There is nothing on record to show that the Complainant and his family members have demanded the vegetarian food or that they were denied the same. In our considered opinion, the Complainant has failed to lead cogent evidence to prove his complaint.
8. In view of the above, the complaint is dismissed.  
9. Order announced on 23.10.24.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Adarsh Nain)      Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President