Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/145/2016

L.Ramajeyam - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Lankan Airlines Limited - Opp.Party(s)

P.Arivudainambi & M.P.Mohan Doss

22 Nov 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  30.08.2016

                                                                Order pronounced on:  22.11.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

WEDNESDAY  THE 22^nd   DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017

 

C.C.NO.145/2016

 

 

Dr.L.Ramajeyam,

S/o. Lakshmanan,

2-B, Tudors Place,

134, P.V.Rajamannar Salai,

K.K.Nagar,

Chennai – 600 078.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1.Srilankan Airlines Limited,

Represented by its Director General of Civil Aviation and

Chief Executive Officer,

Airline Centre,

Bandaranaike International Airport,

Katunayake, Srilanka.

 

2. Srilankan Airlines Limited,

Represented by its Customer Affairs Executive,

No.4, VijayaTowers,

Kodambakkam High Road,

Nungambakkam,

Chennai – 600 034.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                  : 21.09.2016

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s. P.Arivudainambi &

                                                                    M.P.Mohandoss

 

Counsel for Opposite Parties                  : M/s.O.R.Santhanakrishnan,

                                                                    O.S.Karthikeyan

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite parties to pay fare charges, boarding and lodging expenses and compensation for mental agony with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant and his family members have visited Colombo during December 2015. They had 4 confirmed tickets to return to Chennai on 04.12.2015 at 6.35 p.m flight of the opposite parties from Colombo. However, the said tickets were cancelled unilaterally without prior information to the complainant by the 1^st opposite party on 03.12.2015.  The complainant as an alternative arrangement had re-booked four tickets to travel from Colombo to Chennai on 07.12.2015 at 6.35 p.m flight of the opposite parties. When the complainant contacted the opposite parties on 05.12.2015 at 5.30 p.m, he came to know that again those tickets for their journey on 07.12.2015 were also cancelled without any prior intimation to him.

          2. The complainant requested the 1^st opposite party for booking tickets in any flight to travel either up to Madurai or Trichy or Bangalore or Cochin so as to reach Chennai at the earliest by Car and however the 1^st opposite party had replied that no seats were available in any flight till 09.12.2015 to travel from Colombo to any one of the aforesaid four destinations. The complainant and his family members were put to serious shock and sufferings. At this juncture the complainant had contacted his friends at Chennai on 05.12.2015 and at his request, his friends have booked four tickets for them to travel from Colombo to Bangalore in the opposite parties flight No. UL173 on 06.12.2015 with departure time 1.15 a.m . Accordingly by utilizing the said tickets they travelled to Bangalore and from there they reached Chennai on 06.12.2015 itself through road.

          3. The 1^st opposite party unilaterally cancelled their tickets without prior intimation to travel on 04.12.2015 and on 07.12.2015 from Colombo to Chennai is deficiency on his part. After cancellation of the tickets, the complainant made request to book tickets nearby places to Chennai namely Madurai or Trichy or Bangalore or Cochin and however the 1^st opposite party informed that no tickets available even for those destinations till 09.12.2015 is deficiency on his part. Because, the complainant booked tickets from Colombo to Bangalore to travel on 06.12.2015 and accordingly performed their travel. Further the complainant and his family members were made to incur heavy expenses for three days at Sri Lanka for their accommodation, boarding expenses and flight tickets charges from Colombo to Bangalore is also deficiency on the part of the opposite parties.

          4. The complainant made several correspondences with the opposite parties re- pay the tickets charges and other expenses and however the same was not paid to him and hence the complainant filed this complaint seeking various reliefs against the opposite parties for their negligence service.

5. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES 1 & 2 IN BRIEF:

          The opposite parties admit that the complainant booked  a confirmed ticket for travel from Colombo to Chennai on UL flight 123 on 04.12.2015 with departure at 6.35 p.m. The Chennai airport was closed by the Airport Authorities initially on 01.12.2015 due to bad weather and subsequently the airport closure was extended up to 08.12.2015 by the air authorities of India. The complainant knowing the weather conditions contacted the officers of the 1^st opposite party airlines on 03.12.2015 to check the availability of the flights. The officers informed that the flight was cancelled to travel 04.12.2015 due to airport closure.

6. At the request of the complainant all the four tickets were changed to the next available flight to Chennai on 07.12.2015 on free of charge basis. The airport closure was extended up to 08.12.2015 and hence Sri Lankan Airlines was compelled to cancel the flight which was scheduled on  07.12.2015. However, the complainant has managed to reserve seats and travel to Bangalore on 06.12.2015. The booking load varies from time to time and flights could be cleared at the last moment due to cancellation. The cancellation of flight did not occur because of the fault of the airlines. The flight was cancelled because extraordinary circumstances beyond the control of the airlines. It is relevant to note that booking load varies from time to time and flights could be cleared at the last moment due to cancellation. It is emphatically denied form the chain of incontrovertible facts and events the present complaint is squarely covered under total deficiency in service on account of unilateral cancellation without prior intimation and further apathetic attitude by not accommodating confirmed ticket holders by giving top priority to travel to any other nearest destination like Madurai, Trichy, Coimbatore or Cochin. It is denied that a false reply was given to the complainant, since he is an Indian, more particularly a Tamil and a resident of India. All passengers are treated equally by Sri Lankan Airlines and this opposite party has no grudge against anybody including Indian or a Tamil. It is further denied that untrue statements were made to harass Indian and with a view to scuttle complainant’s attempt to more from Colombo.

7.  Under Article 19 of the Convention the carrier shall not liable for damage occasioned by delay if it proves that its servants and agents took all measures that could be reasonably be required to avoid  the damage or that it was impossible for it or them to take such a measure.

8. The complainant is not entitled for the claim of expenses alleged to have met by him at Sri Lanka and for travel from Bangalore to Chennai. The other allegations made in the complaint are denied. The opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service and pray to dismiss the complaint with costs.

9. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

10. POINT NO :1        

           It is an admitted fact that the complainant and his family members have visited Colombo during December 2015 and they had Ex.A1 confirmed return  tickets to Chennai on 04.12.2015 at 6.35 p.m flight of the opposite parties from Colombo and however, the said tickets were cancelled by the Sri Lankan Airlines Limited (1^st opposite party ) on 03.12.2015 and  again their tickets have been  re-booked (Ex.A2) to travel from Colombo to Chennai on 07.12.2015 at 6.35 p.m flight of the opposite parties and again those tickets for their journey on 07.12.2015 were also cancelled. Further, the complainant requested the 1^st opposite party to book tickets in any flight to travel either up to Madurai or Trichy or Bangalore or Cochin, so as to reach Chennai at the earliest and however the 1^st opposite party had replied that no seats were available in any flight till 09.12.2015 to travel from Colombo to any one of the aforesaid four destinations.  Then the complainant had contacted his friend at Chennai on 05.12.2015 and at his request, his friend has booked four tickets for their travel from Colombo to Bangalore in the opposite parties flight No. UL173 on 06.12.2015 with departure time 1.15 a.m and accordingly by utilizing the said Ex.A3, tickets they travelled from Colombo to Bangalore and from there, they reached Chennai on 06.12.2015 itself through road.

          11. The complainant alleged deficiencies against the opposite parties are

1. that the 1^st opposite party unilaterally cancelled their tickets without prior intimation to travel on 04.12.2015 and 07.12.2015 from Colombo to Chennai is deficiency on his part,
2. after cancellation of the tickets, the complainant made request to book tickets nearby places to Chennai namely Madurai or Trichy or Bangalore or Cochin and however the 1^st opposite party informed that no tickets available even for those destinations till 09.12.2015 is deficiency on his part, because the complainant booked tickets from Colombo to Bangalore to travel on 06.12.2015 early morning and accordingly performed their travel and
3.  further the complainant and his family members were made to incur heavy expenses for three days at Sri Lanka for their accommodation, boarding expenses and flight tickets charges from Colombo to Bangalore is also deficiency on the part of the opposite parties.

 

12. Admittedly, the complainant booked tickets for himself and his family members to travel on 04.12.2015 and subsequently on 07.12.2015 were cancelled by the 1^st opposite party due to airport closure at Chennai. The 1st opposite party admitted in his written version that when the complainant contacted the 1^st opposite party airlines on 03.12.2015 to check the availability of flights to travel on 04.12.2015, the officers of the airlines informed the complainant that the flight schedule on 04.12.2015 was cancelled due to airport closure. This admission of the 1^st opposite party clears that he had not informed the complainant about the cancellation of flight on their own and informed only when the complainant contacted them. Likewise, there is no evidence that the 1^st opposite party on his own informed the complainant about the cancellation of the flight scheduled on 07.12.2015. It is the complainant only on verification came to know on 05.12.2015 that the flight schedule on 07.12.2015 was cancelled.

13. The opposite parties would contend that due to natural calamity i.e heavy rain at Chennai the airport was closed and hence the flights were not cancelled on their own and hence such a cancellation cannot be termed as deficiency.  No doubt, the flight was cancelled due to unforeseen circumstance. However, the complainant on landing at Sri Lanka he had registered his Sri Lankan mobile number with the 1^st opposite party, in order to facilitate him to inform any information to the complainant.  The 1^st opposite party had not taken any steps to inform the complainant about the cancellation of the flight.  Therefore, the complainant proved that the cancellation of the flight on 04.12.2015 and 07.12.2015 was not informed to the complainant on their own is deficiency on the part of the opposite parties.  

 

          14. After cancellation of the flight schedule for 07.12.2015, on 05.12.2015 itself, the complainant requested the 1^st opposite party to book tickets nearby places to Chennai viz., Madurai or Trichy or Bangalore or Cochin and however the 1^st opposite party informed that no tickets available even for those destinations till 09.12.2015.  However, the complainant managed to book tickets in the Sri Lankan airlines itself to travel on 06.12.2015 from Colombo to Bangalore through his friend at Chennai and also he and his family members performed their travel to Bangalore and reached Chennai through road. The 1^st opposite party would contend that booking load varies from time to time and flights could be cleared at the last moment due to cancellation and the complainant would have booked the tickets against the cancellation and therefore the opposite parties are not liable for deficiency that they made a statement that no tickets were available till 09.12.2015.  As contended by the 1^st opposite party, if the complainant booked tickets against the cancellation of the tickets, the 1^st opposite party could have very well stated that whose tickets have been cancelled with the name of the passengers and against whom only the complainant tickets were booked. The complainant booked the tickets for four persons to Bangalore.  Having the Sri Lankan airlines maintaining the booking  of tickets also and they could very well stated the passengers those who cancelled the ticket on 05.12.2015 and against whom only the complainant tickets were booked. The 1^st opposite party miserably failed to establish that against the cancellation only the complainant had booked the tickets. Therefore, in such circumstances it is held that the opposite parties failed to book ticket to the nearby places to Chennai as requested by the complainant is deficiency on the part of the opposite parties.

 

          15. The complainant booked ticket to travel from Colombo on 04.12.2015. Due to cancellation of flight by the Sri Lankan Airlines, the complainant and his family members could not travel on the day and they were forced to stay for two days at Sri Lanka on 04.12.2015 and 05.12.2015 and the 1^st opposite party had not arranged for their stay and accommodation and hence in that respect the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service. The flight was cancelled due to natural calamity and unforeseen circumstances. The opposite parties flight has been cancelled only beyond their control and in such circumstances they were not expected to meet the passenger’s expenses. Hence, it is held that the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service in this respect.

          16. From the forgoing discussions, we hold that the 1^st opposite party committed deficiencies to the complainant in respect of failure to intimate the cancellation of flight to him and also not arranged tickets to Bangalore, inspite of that tickets were available to Bangalore and for such Act of deficiency committed by the 1^st opposite party, the 2^nd opposite party, Chennai Office is also liable and hence, it is held that the opposite parties 1&2 have committed deficiency in service.   

17. POINT NO:2

          The negligent act of the 1^st opposite party failed to inform about the cancellation of flight and unilaterally cancelled the ticket and also not arranging flight tickets to the nearby Chennai Airport such as Madurai or Trichy or Bangalore or Cochin were caused mental agony to the complainant is accepted. Therefore for such negligent service and causing metal agony to the complainant, it would be appropriate to order a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony.   

18. The opposite parties counsel argued referring THE CARRIAGE BY AIR ACT,1972  schedule III rule 19 that the carrier shall not be  liable for  damage occasioned that they had taken all measures reasonably required. In the case in hand also due to unforeseen circumstances the airport was closed and consequently the flight was cancelled and hence the opposite parties are not liable to pay compensation in respect of boarding and lodging. However, the complainant claimed tickets fare amount from Colombo to Bangalore. There is no dispute that the complainant was reimbursed the tickets booked from Colombo to Chennai.  Any how the complainant has to bear the ticket charges from Colombo to Chennai. Now he opted to go to Bangalore and therefore the tickets charges for Bangalore met by him is not entitled for re-imbursement. The complainant claimed a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards taxi fare for travelling from Bangalore to Chennai as per Ex.A4 bill. When the complainant travelled from Bangalore he ought to have engaged taxi only at Bangalore and in such circumstances the taxi bill should have been issued by the Bangalore based travels.  Ex.A4 bill issued by Durga Travels which carries on business at Chennai and therefore the complainant and his family members could not have traveled from Bangalore to Chennai through Durga Travels Taxi.  Hence the complainant is not entitled for the taxi fare.

19. The complainant also prayed towards the cost of the complaint. Considering the circumstances of the case, we may order a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 jointly or severally are ordered to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh    only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)  towards litigation expenses. The complaint in respect of the other reliefs sought for is dismissed.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 22^nd   day of November 2017.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 20.11.2015                   E-Ticket bearing Nos.6038934166986 to

                                                     6038934166989 (4 Tickets) from Colombo to

                                                     Chennai, (which stands cancelled on 03.12.2015)

 

Ex.A2 dated 03.12.2015                   E-Ticket  bearing No.6032107738681 to

                                                    6032107738684 (4 Tickets) from Colombo to

                                                    Chennai, (Which stands cancelled on 05.12.2015)

 

Ex.A3 dated 05.12.2015                   E-Ticket to travel from Colombo to Bangalore on

                                                    06.12.2015 at 1.15 a.m Departure

 

Ex.A4 dated 06.12.2015                   Travel’s Bill

 

Ex.A5 dated 07.12.2015                   complainant’s E-mail letter addressed to the 1^st

                                                    opposite party

 

Ex.A6 dated 08.12.2015                   Reply from the 1^st opposite party to the

                                                     complainant

 

Ex.A7 dated 09.12.2015                   Room Tarriff

 

Ex.A8 dated 14.12.2015                   Reply from the 1^st opposite party to the

                                                    Complainant

 

 

Ex.A9 dated 17.12.2015                   E-mail reply from complainant to the 1^st opposite

                                                     party

 

Ex.A10 dated 08.01.2016                 Reply from the 1^st opposite party to the

                                                     complainant

 

Ex.A11 dated 07.04.2016                 Legal Notice sent by e-mail to the 1^st opposite

                                                     party

 

Ex.A12 dated 17.05.2016                 Reply from the 1^st opposite party to the

                                                     complainant

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

                                        …… NIL ……

 

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT