Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/110/2018

Mr.Sattar Mohamed Idris S/o.Lae Abdul Sattar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Srilankan Airlines Ltd. C/o.Translanka Air Travels P Ltd Rep by its manager - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Aiyar & Dolia

23 Jul 2019

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  28.08.2018

                                                               Order pronounced on:  23.07.2019

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

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

 

PRESENT:  TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL -  PRESIDENT

 

TMT.P.V.JEYANTHI B.A., MEMBER - I

 

TUESDAY  THE 23^rd  DAY OF JULY 2019

 

C.C.NO.110/2018

 

 

Mr.Sattar Mohamed Idris,

S/o.Late Abdul Sattar,

16A/1, KTM Villa,

Moores Road,

Moores Garden,

Nungambakkam,

Chennai – 600 006.                                                                                                                      

                                                                                       …..Complainant

 ..Vs..

1. Srilankan Airlines Ltd.,

C/o. Translanka Airl Travels P.Ltd.,

Represented by its Manager,

Vijaya Towers,

No.4, Kodambakkam High Road,

Nungambakkam,

Chennai – 600 034.

 

2. The Manager,

Cutomer Service,

Srilankan Airlines Ltd.,

Level 3, East Tower,

World Trade Centre,

Echelon Square,

Colombo 1.

 

.....Opposite Parties

Counsel for Complainant                        : M/s. Aiyar & Dolia

 

Counsel for  opposite parties                      : M/s.O.R.Santhanakrishnan,

                                                                      O.S.Karthikeyan

 

 

BY PRESIDENT TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite parties    to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-  as compensation for  physical suffering, mental stress and deficiency in service with cost of complaint  u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant had planned his trip to travel to Melbourne and booked flight tickets through the opposite parties airlines. He left Chennai and travelled to Colombo on 17^th  January 2018 and from Colombo to Melbourne, through transit flight. On 18^th January 2018, the complainant  reached Melbourne. The complainant submits that during his transit, the opposite party airlines provided room in a hotel called Sea Shine Hotel which was very far from the airport and it was more than 1 ½ hour travel to reach the hotel. The hotel was also of sub standard quality. The complainant being a senior citizen, suffering from physical ailments was unable to sleep due to the uncomfortable stay. The complainant states that he was made to leave the hotel by 3.30 am on 15.04.2018 i.e., 5 hours  prior to flight departure time. The complainant is already a patient suffering from Blood Pressure was put to discomfort and physical stress. The complainant requested the Airlines staff for some other alternative accommodation near the Airport, the opposite parties bluntly refused. The complainant all along his return journey had symptoms of nausea and uneasiness. His entire return journey was miserable. The complainant vide his letter dated 11.05.2018 wrote to the 2^nd opposite party about the suffering/turmoil which he had undergone because of the  poor planning  of airlines lack of co-ordination and claimed USD 5000 as damages. The 2^nd opposite party acknowledged the letter by way of reply and expressed apology for the inconvenience caused and assured to check with the concerned department. Further on 19.06.2018, the 2^nd opposite party sent another letter, reiterating the contents of their earlier letter and informed the complainant that they will not be able to provide any compensation. The complainant  received a letter dated 16.07.2018 from the 1^st opposite party, wherein it had denied to accept the complainant’s claim, but admitted that the hotel is 23 kms from the airport. Ten days before his return journey from Melbourne, the Airlines Staff of the 2^nd opposite party called to inform the complainant  that his journey has been re-scheduled. Even at that juncture, the opposite parties could have taken steps to make a proper and suitable arrangement. The opposite parties had committed gross deficiency in service and it cannot be doubted that this ordeal has caused tremendous physical and mental agony to the complainant.    

2.WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF: 

           Srilankan flight 125 was cancelled due to commercial reason and the passenger was rebooked by opposite parties  on SRILANKAN FLIGHT 121. There was a transit time of 8 hours and 55 minutes at Colombo. He was provided accommodation at hotel “Sea Shine Beach”. Complainant landed at Colombo airport on 14.04.2018 at 22.30 and he was rebooked on Srilankan flight 121 departing at 7.25 hours on 14.04.2018. The drive from airport to the hotel is about 40 minutes and complainant had to return 3 hours before departing at 7.25 hrs.  It is denied the hotel in which he stayed was sub standard quality. The complainant is put to strict proof. In fact hotel “Sea Shine Beach” has been one of the hotel in the vicinity which is generally provided to all the transit passengers of the opposite parties. The hotel accommodation was made at the cost of the airlines. The complainant is put to strict proof that the complainant was suffering from blood pressure,  discomfort and physical stress.  When the complainant was offered the stay at “Sea Shine Beach Hotel” he has accepted the same without any protest/demur. It is denied the opposite parties committed gross deficiency in service. Hence complaint may be dismissed.

3. 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?

4. POINT NO :1 

          The complainant booked flight ticket through the opposite parties airlines for the travel to Melbourne, and left Chennai and travelled to Colombo on 17.01.2018  and from Colombo to Melbourne through transit flight. On 18^th  January he reached Melbourne  and  stayed there for more than 2 months and scheduled to travel to Chennai through opposite parties  airlines provided  on 14^th  April from Melbourne to Colombo. During transit the opposite parties provided the complainant for the stay in a hotel namely “Sea Shine Hotel” which has 1 ½  hours travel from airport and according to the complainant, the said hotel was sub-standard in its quality. The contention of the complainant is that he being a senior citizen suffering from physical ailments was unable to sleep due to uncomfortable stay in the  hotel arranged by opposite parties  and also he was put to discomfort because of their visit to airport  three  hours prior to flight departure,  hence the claim is for deficiency in service by opposite parties. Copy of the air tickets are Ex.A1.  Correspondence between the complainant and 1^st  & 2^nd opposite parties are Ex.A2 to Ex.A8. The complainant after his stay at Melbourne scheduled his travel to Chennai from Melbourne through opposite parties airlines on 14^th April. He travelled from Melbourne to Colombo on Srilankan flight 605 on 14.04.2018.

05. The opposite parties would contend that as per the original booking he was supposed to fly to Chennai on Srilankan flight 125 on 15.04.2018 and the said flight was cancelled.  The  complainant was rebooked on SriLankan flight 121 and there was a transit time of 8 hours  and 55 minutes at Colombo and the complainant was provided an accommodation in hotel “Sun Shine Beach” at the cost of opposite parties . The allegations against the quality of hotel and also regarding the complainant’s ailments are denied. Cancellation of   SriLanka flight 125  was due to commercial reasons and the passenger was rebooked on Sri Lankan flight 121 and the information  was given to the  complainant 11 days earlier to its departure. The complainant landed at Colombo airport at 22.30 hrs and Sri Lanka  to Chennai  departing time was 7.25 a.m on 15.04.2018.  The drive from airport to hotel is about 40 minutes and complainant had to return 3 hours before departing at 7.25 hours. The complainant had not protested during of his stay at the said hotel or even earlier when he was offered for the stay. It is also contended by the opposite parties that the said hotel is generally provided to all the transit passengers of the opposite parties and the hotel accommodation was done at the cost of the opposite parties airlines. The  passengers including the complainant was brought to the airport 3 hours earlier to the scheduled departure due to immigration formalities by the opposite parties which cannot be avoided. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

06. The travel is not  a package trip.   The complaint  travelled out of the  regular booking of airlines and  admittedly  the cost of the stay of the complainant  and  other passengers was borne by the opposite parties.  All passengers were brought back to the airport at the cost of opposite parties  and it is to be pointed out that the trip is not a package one  and it is only the regular booking for the travel only. Hence the complainant cannot claim any compensation from the opposite parties when the service was done at their own cost of opposite parties and the flight delay cannot also be questioned because it may be caused due to various reasons such as poor visibility, bad weather, bird hit technical snag etc.,.

           07.  The complainant  in this case had alleged that  he suffered due to negligence of opposite parties  with respect to the stay at hotel Sea Shine which is of  substandard  quality and also not nearest to the airport. He also suffered due to his physical ailments, was unable to sleep because of  uncomfortable stay. As discussed in earlier paragraphs admittedly the flight cancellation was informed in advance and the complainant had not protested at the time of stay. In order to fulfill the immigration formalities only the passengers including the complainant were brought to the airport 3 hours earlier to the scheduled departure and all these formalities were done at the cost of the opposite parties airlines and the service for the above was not charged from the complainant. Even then the complainant has not substantiated the alleged substandard quality of the hotel and also alleged physical ailments and other sufferings of  himself. Due to the availability of rooms at that point of time the passengers were taken to the said hotel and complainant was comfortably taken to the hotel by the opposite parties after due information earlier, and there was no protest at the time of stay in the said hotel by the complainant, itself  clearly proves that there would not have been any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore the complainant has not proved any deficiency on the part of opposite parties and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and point 1 is answered accordingly.

 

08. POINT NO:2

 Since it is concluded that there is no deficiency on the part of opposite parties there cannot be any loss or damage to the complainant and the complainant is not entitled to any relief against the opposite parties and the complaint is dismissed. 

In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No costs.                      

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 23^rd  day of July 2019.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 17.01.2018                   Copy of Air Tickets

18.01.2018, 14.04.2018

15.04.2018          

 

Ex.A2 dated 11.05.2018                   Letter sent through Registered post to 2^nd opposite

                                                    party

 

Ex.A3 dated 14.05.2018                   Reply letter from opposite party

 

Ex.A4 dated 01.06.2018                   Reply letter from opposite party airlines

 

Ex.A5 dated 01.06.2018                   First Reminder letter from complainant

 

Ex.A6 dated  19.06.2018                  Reply letter from 2^nd opposite party

 

Ex.A7 dated 05.07.2018                   Second Reminder letter from complainant

 

Ex.A8 dated 16.07.2018                   Letter from opposite party airlines

 

Ex.A9 dated 18.07.2018                   Legal Notice issued to opposite parties with        

                                                    Receipts

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

                                                …….NIL…..

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT