By Jayasree Kallat, Member:

 

            Complaint is filed on 1-8-06. The complaint is filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Complainant Muhammed Ashraf his wife Fousiya and their three children were the five passengers booked along with other passengers in the flight of the Indian Airlines IC 596 scheduled to be departed from Sharja Airport to Calicut Airport at 1.10 A.M. (IST 2.45 P.M.) on 30-4-2005. The complainants were taken to the lobby of Sharja Airport. The complainants were waiting for boarding into the flight. After sometime it was announced that there is delay in flight due to some technical reasons. The passengers including the complainants had to wait indefinitely. Opposite party did not give any specific reason for prolonging the flight time. The complainant and his family along with other passengers had to be in the lobby through out night. Opposite party did not give any night accommodation to the complainants. Opposite party did not provide any food or water also to the complainants. The complainants faced many difficulties. No responsible staffs of the opposite party were available. The flight took off only at 1.30 P.M. on 30-4-05. Due to the negligence and deficiency of the opposite party the flight which ought to have reached by7.30 A.M. (I.S.T.) on 30-4-06 landed only at 9.30 P.M. (I.S.T.) on 30-4-06. Due to the delay the complainant also missed a very important business meeting which was to be held at 3 P.M. on 30-4-06. The petition is filed for the physical and mental suffering which the complainants had to undergo due to the negligence and deficiency of the opposite party.

 

            Opposite party filed a version denying the averments in the complaint. Opposite party states that complainant is not a consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act. Opposite party admits the fact that the complainant and his family had reservation to travel by the opposite party’s flight I.C. 596 on 30-4-05 from Sharja to Calicut. The route pattern of the air craft operating flight IC 595/596 was Mumbai- Calicut- Cochin- Sharjah- Cochin – Calicut. Due to engineering reasons the flight was delayed at Mumbai and arrived Sharja only at 0.200 hours local time. The departure was fixed as 0.300 hours local time. The air craft developed a technical snag at Sharja and got further delayed by 10 hours and 20 minutes. The delay was a progressive delay. Hence the departure fixed was revised three times. Due to this inordinate delay, the opposite party’s Sharje office had provided all possible facilities to the passengers. As a special case the families, ladies and children were accommodated in business class lounge. The complainant Mr. Asharaf and his family were also given business class lounge facility. 28 passengers who were having a residence visa opted for hotel accommodation and the same was given at airport motel. The rest of the passengers were given constantly delay information and served with dinner, light refreshments, breakfast, tea, coffee and water. The Sharja Airport was undergoing a renovation at that time. Inspite of that opposite party had made all arrangements for the comfortable passengers. There was no willful negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainants. There is no basis for the huge amount claimed by the complainant. As the complainants are not entitled for any reliefs. Opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint with costs to the opposite party.

 

            The only point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief? If so to what extent?

 

            The first complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A4 were marked on complainant’s side. Opposite party was examined as RW1 and Ext.B1 to B4 were marked on O.P’s side.

 

            The case of the complainant is that the complainant and his family including his wife and three children had booked for traveling in the flight of the Indian Airlines IC 596 from Sharja to Calicut on 30-4-05. The complainants had reached the Airport at 10.30 P.M. on 29-4-05. The flight was scheduled to be departed from Sharja Airport to Calicut at 1.10 A.M. on 30-4-05. But due to certain technical problems opposite party delayed the flight and passengers had to wait indefinitely. Complainant and his family had to remaining the lobby through out the night. The allegation of the complainant is that opposite party did not make any arrangements for the passengers including the complainant and his family.   Complainant and his family had to remain in the lounge without food, water. The flight which ought to have reached Calicut by 7.30 A.M. on 30-4-05 landed at Calicut at 9.30 P.M. There was a delay of almost 14 hours. The undue delay had caused much hardship to complainant and his family. According to the complainant being the Managing Director of a company he had to attend an important meeting of directors which he missed due to the irresponsible and negligent act of the opposite party. Opposite party has taken the definite contention that the flight was delayed due to technical reasons. RW1 who was the duty Manager at Sharja Airport during 2005 June to January 2009 has given evidence on the part of opposite party. RW1 has deposed that IC-595 was the corresponding incoming flight to Sharja the very same flight will operate as IC-596 from Sharja to Cochin- Calicut and finally Bombay. According to opposite party IC-595 flight was delayed from Bombay the reason was technical snags. Opposite party described it has engineering problem. The flight which was to have taken place at 1.10 A.M. had reached Sharja from Bombay only at 2 A.M. That delay was conveyed to the passengers. The flight was further delayed due to break assembly got jammed. After that the flight was postponed twice and at last minute there was technical snag of hydrolic leakage. Page-3 of the deposition of RW1 the flight delay at various points clearly given. In page-9 of the deposition of RW1 the counsel for the complainant had to be forwarded a question to RW1. The question was to give more security to the passengers. You ought to have chartered another air craft. RW1 has answered to this question that it was not practically possible. It would have taken much more time to arrange another air craft from India as this happened at Sharja. Complainant has filed this petition alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Opposite party has detailed why the flight was delayed for long period of 12 hours. According to opposite party the security of the passengers was of prime importance to the opposite party. Opposite party was not ready to risk even for a minute defect snag. Another contention of the complainant is that opposite party did not make any arrangements for the passengers who had to wait indefinitely at the airport for hours together. Opposite party has replied to this, that they have made hotel arrangements for the passengers who had resident visa. The families, ladies and children were accommodated in business class lounge as a special case. Opposite party submits that the passengers may constantly given the delay information and served with dinner, light refreshments, breakfast, Tea, coffee and water. The question which arises here is that whether the efforts taken by the opposite party was enough for the passengers. The case before us filed by Muhammed Ashraf and his family and evidence shows that complainant and his family were dissatisfied with the arrangements made by the opposite party. Even though the opposite party has stated that they have provided for the passengers of the delayed flight. According to PW1 he and his wife were not provided with food, water or other comforts they had to spend the whole night in discomfort. Complainant also has a case that he could not attend the business meeting at Calicut. After going through the evidence and hearing both sides the Forum has come to the conclusion that the flight delay has occurred due to technical snags. It was better not to ply an air plane with technical snags the delay is justified by the opposite party can be taken into consideration. But whether the opposite party has taken care of their passengers were fully satisfied they will not approach the court of law. Hence we are of the opinion that the complainant and his family are entitled for relief. The question to be answered here is of what extend are they entitled to? A family with children of age 16, 14 and 12 had to spend the whole night in the Sharja Airport. Complainants’ statements that there was nobody to answer the queries. In a proper way or they were not provided with food and other facilities like blankets can be accepted. In that instance we are of the opinion that the opposite party should be penalized, so that they will not repeat such incidents in future. But according to us the complainant has sought for an exorbitant relief. The technical snag which has happened was not a willful negligence on the part of opposite party. But we are penalizing the opposite party for a small amount for their deficient service which occurred at the airport. The complainant was not able to prove concretely about his business loss.

 

            In the result the petition is allowed directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.15000/- to the complainants within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

 

Pronounced in the open court this the 14^th day of June 2010.

 

 

                        SD/- PRESIDENT           SD/- MEMBER                   SD/- MEMBER

 

 

APPENDIX

 

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

A1. Photocopy of tickets.

A2. Copy of letter dt. 19-5-06.

A3. True extract copy of minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors

        Of the company held on 3^rd April 2006.

A4. Photocopy of Front page of Passport and Visa.

 

Documents exhibited for the opposite party.

B1. True copy of Fax Message dt. 13-9-2006.

B2. True copy of Fax Message dt. 16-9-06.

B3. True copy of Tax Message dt. 16-9-06.

B4. True copy of Fax Message dt. 16-9-06.

 

Witness examined for the complainant:

 

PW1. Muhammed Ashraf (Complainant)

 

Witness examined for the opposite party.

RW1. P.V. Narayanan, Airport Manager, Calicut Airport of the O.P. Company.

 

                                                                                    Sd/- President

                        // True copy //

 

Petition filed on: 2-8-06.

Date of order     : 14-6-10.

 

(Forwarded/By order)

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.