| Final Order / Judgement | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM CACHAR :: SILCHAR Con. Case No. 12 of 2012 Sri Bishwajit Nath, …………………………………………………… Complainant. -V/S- 1. AIR India, (Notice to be served upon the Station Manager) Club Road, Silchar-1. O.P No.1 2. Kingafisher Airline, Kingfisher House, Western Express Highway, Ville Parle (East) Mumbai- 400099. O.P No.2 Present: - Sri Bishnu Debnath, President, District Consumer Forum, Cachar, Silchar. Mrs. Chandana Purkayastha, Member, District Consumer Forum, Cachar, Silchar. Shri Kamal Kumar Sarda, Member, District Consumer Forum, Cachar, Silchar. Appeared :- Sri A. Biswas , Advocate for the complainant. Sri Paritosh Dhar, Advocate for the O.P.No.1. None for O.P. No.2. Date of Evidence……………………….. 07-12-2012, 21-03-2013 Date of written argument……………… 31-08-2015, 14-03-2017 Date of oral argument………………….. 24-05-2017, 13-07-2017 Date of judgment………………………. 27-07-2017 JUDGMENT AND ORDER Sri Bishnu Dednath, - This case is brought by Sri. Bishwajit Nath, a passenger of AIR India Flight No. A1-753 for journey on 26-02-2012 from Kolkata to Silchar, for award on compensation and refund of Ticket price of Rs.13,587.00 from AIR India on account of disservice caused to him and his (two) co-passengers i.e. his wife Smt. Manashi Nath and sister-in-low Smt. Sarbani Dey. He brought the complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 before this District Forum with following facts:-
On 12-09-2011, he purchased E-Ticket ID No. NF-551571106575 for Kingfisher Red flight No.IT-4804. The date of journey from Kolkata to Silchar was scheduled on 26-02-2012. Price of the ticket was Rs.9394 for 3 (three) passengers including his wife Smt. Manashi Nath and his sister-in-law Smt. Sarbani Dey and for him. But much before the schedule date of journey the said flight of Kingfisher Red had been withdrawn. Accordingly, an alternative arrangement was made to travel by AIR India flight No.A1753 on the schedule date on 26-02-2012. The said alternative arrangement was duly informed to him and AIR India issued fresh E-Ticket on 11-12-2011 without taking any more charge from the complainant. The said fresh E-Ticket of AIR India are (1) No. 0902471995870, (2) No.0902471995871 and (3) No.0902471995874. In those E-Ticket the Air India mentioned Agency name for purchase of ticket was ‘Kingfisher Airlines’. - On the schedule date and time the complainant and his (two) co-passengers obtained Boarding Pass of AIR India flight No. A1-753 form the AIR India counter at Kolkata Airport by Showing the E-Ticket subsequently issued by the AIR India. The number of E-Ticket also mentioned in the Boarding Pass for each of the passengers. But when the complainant and his 2 (two) co-passengers were waiting in the security lounge for boarding to the flight No.A1-753 of AIR India they were call back to counter and informed that the E-Tickets were cancelled and took back the Boarding Passes. After hot conversation between the complainant and concern officer of the AIR India at counter, he was rather compelled to purchase fresh E-Ticket No. 0982102924959-61 by payment of Rs.13,587 by sweeping the Debit Card at Kolkata Airport on that schedule date. Then the officer sitting at the AIR India counter rehanded over the Boarding Pass which were earlier seized from him. In those Boarding Pass the number of E-Ticket issued on 11-12-2011. Accordingly, the Complainant and his 2(two) co-passenger travelled in the AIR India flight No. A1-753 and reached to Silchar. On being aggrieved for harassment above and for compelling him to purchase new E-Ticket for Rs.13,587.00 brought the complainant before this consumer Forum for award.
- In this case the complaint brought against the AIR India and agent Kingfisher Airlines. The AIR India being O.P No.1 submitted W/S and contested the case. The Kingfisher Airlines did not turn up. So, the case is proceeding exparte against it vide order dated 14-08-2012. Of course, the complainant did not pray for any relief against O.P No.2.
- Anyhow, the O.P No.1 in its W/S denied the allegation of harassment but admitted that Boarding Pass issued on the basis of E-Ticket purchased on 26-02-2012. The O.P also stated that Kingfisher (IT) documents were not acceptable on any AIR India (AI) flights for any purpose with effect from 21-02-2012. Thus, the AIR India Ltd. is not liable for any damage directly or indirectly arising out of compliance with law, Government Rules and Regulations, order or requirements or from any reason/thing beyond their control.
- More specifically the O.P No.1 stated in the W/S on Para No.20 as below:-
“On 26-02-2012 the complainant holding Kingfisher travel documents reported to the cheek-in-counter of AIR India at Kolkata Airport for travel by flight A1-753 from Kolkata to Silchar. But there was existing embargo on acceptance of Kingfisher travel documents on 26-02-2012 as Kingfisher travel documents were invalid since Kingfisher Airlines (O.P No.2) was suspended from International Air-traffic Association (IATA) at the material time as they (O.P No.2) did not settle their INTERENATIONAL CLEARING HOUSE (ICH) accounts within the stipulated time”. - During hearing the complainant adduced evidence on oath and exhibited E-Ticket of Kingfisher vide Ext.5, E-Ticket of AIR India dated 11-12-2011 vide Ext.4, E-Ticket of AIR India dated 26-02-2012 vide Ext.1, Ext.2 and Ext.3 respectively. The Boarding Pass in connection with E-Ticket No. 0902471995870, E-Ticket No. 0902471995871 and E-Ticket No. 0902471995874 vide Ext. 8, Ext.6 and Exr.7 respectively.
- The O.P No.1 also examined Sri Kamei Lungthau the station Manager of AIR India Ltd., Silchar as D.W and exhibited a E-mail of AIR India Ltd., a newspaper clipping of business line dated 02-02-2012 and a newspaper clipping of T N Global Travel Industry news dated 02-02-2012 vide Ext. A, Ext.B and Ext.C respectively. Both sides’ counsels submitted their written argument at the end of the deposition. We have heard both sides’ counsels. Perused evidence on record and also consult the written argument.
- From the above evidence on record, it is cull out that the complainant is feeling harassment for compelling him to purchase new ticket of AIR India flight No. A1-753 on the schedule date for journey from Kolkata to Silchar by spending money of Rs.13,587/- without refunding the price of Rs.9,394/- spent to purchase E-Ticket of Kingfisher. Vide Ext.5. Accordingly, the complainant by adducing evidence establish a unchallenged fact that his Ext.5 ticket was rearranged by issuing a fresh E-Ticket dated 11-12-2011 by the O.P No.1 and accordingly, Boarding Pass were issued by mentioning the number of E-Ticket available in the Ext.4. The Boarding Passes are Ext.6, 7 and 8. But the complainant on oath deposed that the said Boarding Passes seized from him at check-in-counter of AIR India, at Kolkata and compelled him to purchase new E-Ticket as the E- Ticket purchase earlier from Kingfisher has been cancelled. To support his above plea, he exhibited the E-Ticket purchased on 26-02-2012 at Kolkata Airport vide Ext.1, Ext.2 and Ext.3 respectively. He also deposed that to purchase the E-Ticket above, he spent Rs.13,587/-. Ext.9 is the electronic slip of information of spending the aforesaid amount of money.
- But the O.P did not agree rather stated that on request of the complainant the E-Ticket sold to him for the journey on 26-02-2012 by AIR India flight No. A1-753 which mean the Ext.1, 2 and 3 are not challenged document and spending money of Rs.13,587/- are also unchallenged fact. It is also unchallenged fact that the complainant and his 2 (two) co-passengers travelled by AIR India flight No. A1-753 on 26-02-2012 from Kolkata to Silchar by obtaining Ext.6, Ext.7 and Ext.8 Boarding Pass in the Ext.6, Ext.7 and Ext.8. Number of E-Ticket available which are shown received from AIR India on 11-12-2011.
- Anyhow, if the plea of the O.P is taken as true that the O.P No.1 did not compel the complainant to purchases E-Ticket on 26-02-2012 than why the E-Ticket number mentioned in the E-Ticket purchased on 26-02-2012 are not mentioned in the Boarding Pass vide Ext.6, Ext.7 and Ext.8. Nothing explained by the O.P No.1 in that issue. Hence, it is opined that the allegation brought by the Complainant that he was compelled to purchase fresh E-Tickets for journey form Kolkata to Silchar on 26-02-2012 by AIR India flight No. A1-753 are believable and reliable.
- However, the O.P took a plea that the Kingfisher (IT) documents were not acceptable on any AIR India (AI) flights for any purpose with effect from 21-02-2012. Accordingly, exhibited some document including e-mail vide Ext.4. The Ld. Advocate of the O.P No.1 in his written argument in Para No.3 also very clearly stated that the said embargo stated with effect from 21-02-2012. But it is clear form evidence on record that the AIR India Ltd. issued fresh E-Ticket to the complainant on the basis of arrangement between Kingfisher Airline and AIR India Ltd. on 11-12-2011 i.e. much prior to the date of stating the above mentioned embargo.
- Moreover, when issued the Boarding Pass vide Ext.6, Ext.7 and Ext.8 the check-in-counter of AIR India at Kolkata gave positive response to the E-Ticket dated 11-12-2012 but at the same time compelled to the complainant to purchase fresh E-Tickets vide Ext.1. 2 and 3. As the E-Ticket issue on 11-12-2012 on alternative arrangement between Kingfisher Airlines and AIR India Ltd. much prior to the date of aforesaid embargo and on the basis of said alternative arrangement, the complainant and his 2 (two) co-passengers came to Airport on schedule date to travel, so the AIR India Ltd. ought to take the matter in consideration and to give proper response and proper treatment to the passenger and if the embargo has any retrospective effect it should not be imposed to the passenger for whom the O.P already issued E-Ticket on 11-12-2012. Moreover if the embargo started with effect from 21-02-2012 or from any retrospective date the O.P No.1 ought to inform the complainant immediately keeping in mind the event of convenience and inconvenience of the complainant and his 2 (two) co-passenger. So, that complainant could get reasonable time for demanding refund of price of E-Ticket purchased on 12-09-2011 from the Kingfisher Airlines vide Ext.5. But the O.P No.1 did not discharge its due diligence and duties toward the complainant.
- Hence, in our opinion the O.P No.1 committed deficiency of service. So the O.P No.1 is liable to return the price of E-Ticket purchase by the complainant on 26-02-2012 for Rs.13,587/- vide Ext. 1,2 and 3 and Ext.9 with interest from the date of purchasing the E-Ticket on 26-02-2012 at rate of 8% per annum till realization of the full. For deficiency of service to the complainant and his 2(two) co-passenger, the O.P No.1 is also liable to pay compensation of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand) only and cost of the proceeding of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) only. Of course the O.P No.1 may realize the price of the E-Ticket issued by Kingfisher vide ID No. 551571106575 (Ext.5) for O.P No.2 as per the procedure establish by law.
- With the above the O.P No.1 directed to make payment of compensation of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven thousand) only and cost of proceeding of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand) only along with price of E-Ticket dated 26-02-2012 with up to date interest within 45 days from today. In default the O.P No.1 is to pay interest on the total amount on calculation @ 10% P.A. till realization of the full. Supply free certified copy of the judgment to the parties.
Given under hand and seal of the District Forum on this the 27th day of July, 2017. | |
