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

========

Rishampreet Singh r/o #2587, Sector 69, SAS Nagar, Mohali (Punjab).

….…Complainant

                                V E R S U S

1.        Sri Lankan Airlines Ltd., No.312, 3^rd Floor, World Trade Centre, Barakhamba Avenue, Connaught Place, New Delhi 110001, India.

2.        M/s Airpak International Cabin No.16, First Floor, SCO 71-73, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh through its Proprietor, Mr. Rohit Badhwar.

                                        ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:    SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL       PRESIDENT

                DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL              MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. N.K. Mankotia, Adv. for complainant.

Sh. Shakti K. Pattanaik, Adv. for OP-1

Sh.Rohit Badhwar, Proprietor of OP No.2

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

                Succinctly put, the complainant got married on 19.10.2008 and in order to enjoy honeymoon outside India, he purchased a package tour of 8 days of OP-1 from OP-2. The OPs organized the entire package tour for 2 nights at Genting (Malaysia) and 2 nights at Langkawi (Malaysia) from 1.11.2008 to 7.11.2008 for two persons and charged Rs.76,000/- including a sum of Rs.2,000/- as taxi charges  from Chandigarh to New Delhi International airport. However, problem arose on 6.11.2008 itself when he and his wife were not allowed to board the connected flight at Kula Lumpur International Airport despite the fact that they had reached and reported before the actual departure of flight.  According to the fixed programme he reached at the LCCT Airport at Langkawi to catch flight No.AK6305 for Kula Lumpur (from where he was to take connecting flight UL 302 of Sri Lankan Airlines for Colombo) supposed to take off at 12:50 p.m. on 6.11.2008 but the same was late by 1½ hours and finally took off at 2:20 pm and landed at LCCT (domestic airport) at 3:20 p.m. and take off time of flight No.UL 302 was 4:25 p.m. Anticipating delay, he informed the staff of OP-1 and after getting down reported at the counter at 4:10 p.m. i.e. before the departure of connecting flight but still he was not allowed to board the plane.  He ultimately got the confirmed tickets for 8.11.2008 as the flights were full for 7.11.2008 and reached Delhi on 9.11.2008 which was two days behind schedule. It has been alleged that the entire problem occurred due to the negligence of the OPs as they should have anticipated the delay in connecting flights. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2]             In their written reply OP-1 admitted that the complainant and his wife reported after the closure of counter for flight UL 302, which he was to board on 6.11.2008.  It has been stated that the complainant reached the counter after 4:25 when the flight was ready to depart, therefore, could not be accommodated.  It has been denied that the OP had a contract of package tour with the complainant.  It has been submitted that the itinerary was chosen by the complainant after deliberating with the tour operator. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3]             OP-2 also filed reply stating therein that there was no deficiency on their part.  It is submitted that entire problem arose due to the delay in the Air Asia Flight No.AK6305 from Langkawi due to which the passengers were marked no-show for Sri Lankan Airlines on 6.11.2008.  It is also submitted that Sri Lankan Airlines were not on fault in any case as the passenger was no-show for them and there was no liability of airline to entertain the no-show passengers and they were not even liable to accommodate the passengers on same tickets.  However, answering OP tried to accommodate the complainant on the same tickets with no charges for 7.11.2008 but the flight situation was very tight so it could only be confirmed for 8.11.2008.  It is next submitted the deficiency was only on the part of Air Asia Airline to whom the complainant had not made a party in the complaint.  Denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4]             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]             We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties as well as Proprietor of OP No.2 and have also perused the record including written arguments. 

6]             It is admitted by the complainant that the flight AK6305 from Langkawi to Kuala Lumpur was late.  Its scheduled take off time was 12.50 p.m. but it took off at 2.20 p.m.  The deficiency in service if any was therefore on the part of Air Asia flight AK6305 which reached late at Kuala Lumpur, due to which the complainant could not catch the next flight to Colombo. However, Air Asia has not been made a party to this complaint for the reasons best known to the complainant. The OPs cannot be penalized for the fault of Air Asia Airlines.

7]             The complainant has mentioned in para number 5 of the complaint that the flight AK6305 from Langkawi to Kuala Lumpur was to take off at 12.50 p.m. on 6.11.2008 but it took off at 2.20 p.m and landed at LCCT(domestic airport) at 3.20 p.m. It shows that the flight took one hour to reach Kuala Lumpur.  If it had taken off at the scheduled time at 12.50 p.m., it would have reached Kuala Lumpur at 1.50 p.m. The next flight from Kuala Lumpur to Colombo was to take off at 4.25 p.m.  There was therefore a gap of 2 hours and 35 minutes between the two flights.  It cannot be said if the gap between the two flights was short or the complainant could not catch the next flight.  There was therefore no deficiency in service on the part of the OP in making the itinerary.

8]             The complete itinerary had already been given to the complainant and if he felt that there would not be sufficient time for him to catch the flight at Kuala Lumpur or that flights generally get late, he could have given appropriate instructions to the OP-2 to keep some more time between the two flights.  He however did not consider it necessary to seek more time between the two flights and therefore cannot now blame OP-2 for giving him less time.  Even OP-2 could not expect that Air Asia flight would be late by about one and a half hour. Any Deficiency in service therefore cannot be attributed to OP-2.

9]             Sri Lankan flight UL302 was to take off at 4.25 p.m.  The complainant claims to have reported at the counter at 4.10 p.m. but the OP-1 has contended in para 6 of the reply that infact he reached the counter after 4.25 p.m., when the flight was ready to depart.  The complainant was required to reach the counter 2 hours before the departure of the flight, so that the necessary security checks could be carried out.  The flight could not be detained for him and it was rightly a case of no-show.  If the complainant reached late, the OP-1 was not deficient nor can we expect that they would keep the aeroplane at hold and wait for the complainant who was to arrive late. There is therefore no deficiency in service on the part of the OP-1.

10]            The complainant was accomdated by OP-1, in the next available flight on 8.11.2008 without charging anything as is mentioned in para number 11 of the reply.  Even though OP-1 was not at fault, yet they honored the ticket given by them without any extra cost.  The complainant is therefore not entitled to the claim amount of Rs.12,116.20P from any of the OPs.

11]            In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this complaint.  The same is accordingly dismissed.

                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.