By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,<br /> <br /> 1. Brief facts:-<br /> Complaint is preferred by power of attorney holder of complainant who is also his father. Complainant who is working as an Accountant in Riyadh (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) booked tickets from Riyadh to Calicut and also return ticket from Calicut to Riyadh through Air India. Complainant reached his native place by Air India flight and his journey back to Riyadh was due on 31-7-05 as per the confirmed ticket. On 31-7-05 when he reached Calicut Airport he was informed by Air India that the flight is cancelled. The staff of Air India offered alternative arrangement to complainant and some other passengers who had to reach Saudi urgently. As per the alternative arrangement complainant could travel to Bahrain the next morning by Air India flight No.A1 957. From Bahrain Air India would arrange their conveyance by road to Saudi Arabia. It was assured that all expenses of transit visa fees and the transport from Bahrain to Riyadh would be met by Air India. Complainant and sixteen other passengers opted to accept this alternative arrangement believing the assurances made by Air India. They travelled to Bahrain in flight A1 957 on 01-8-05 and reached Bahrain. On reaching Bahrain Airport complainant realised that Air India had not arranged any facility as promised and felt cheated. Complainant and others collected money and paid for their transit visa. They themselves arranged trnasport and incurred the expenses of Rs.15,000/- for travel from Bahrain to Saudi. Complainant alleges deficiency in service and claims Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation and refund of Rs.15,000/- spend towards travel from Bahrain to Saudi.<br /> 2. Joint version was filed by opposite parties one to three. Fourth opposite party who is the travel agent filed separate version. Opposite parties one to three admit that complainant had booked travelling ticket to travel from Riyadh to Calicut and back to Riyadh. That complainant availed the first portion of his ticket by travelling from Riyadh to Calicut and the complainant's ticket from Calicut to Riyadh was confirmed. It is submitted that due to heavy rains and floods that lashed Bombay, the Airport Authority closed down Bombay Airport on and from 26-7-05. This caused disruption and maintenance of aircrafts stationed at Bombay Airport including the air crafts of opposite parties. Thus opposite parties was forced to cancel a few flights or reschedule some flights. The situation was beyond the control of anybody as it was an Act of God. Flight A1 923 which was scheduled to fly from Calicut to Riyadh on 31-7-05 was also cancelled due to heavy rains at Bombay. Complainant requested opposite parties that it was necessary for him to reach Saudi immediately. Or else it would amount to cancellation of visa and subsequent loss of employment. Considering the urgency and request opposite parties made alternative arrangement. Opposite parties made necessary arrangements for complainant and fellow passengers to travel to Bahrain the next morning in Air India flight No.A1 957 and it was informed that air India would make arrangements at Bahrain for their onward transport from Bahrain to Damam Airport (Saudi Arabia). It was also assured that all expenses would be met by Air India. Complainant and other sixteen passengers travelled on 01-8-05 to Bahrain from Calicut and they were transported at the expenses of Air India. Their transit visa fees at Bahrain was also paid by Air India. Duty of opposite parties as carrier is completed when passengers reach their destination and there is no deficiency in service.<br /> 3. Evidence consists of affidavit filed by complainant and Ext.A1 to A6 marked on his side. Opposite parties one to three filed a joined affidavit and Exts.B1 and B2 was marked on their side.<br /> Points for consideration:- <br /> (i) Whether opposite parties are deficient in service? <br /> (ii) If so, reliefs and costs.<br /> 4. Point (i):-<br /> The undisputed facts of this case are that complainant was to travel from Calicut to Riyadh on 31-7-05 by flight No.A1 923 of Air India. It is also not disputed that due to cancellation of this flight complainant who had confirmed ticket could not travel on 31-7-05 to Riyadh. According to opposite parties due to heavy rain and floods that slashed Bombay, Airport Authority of India closed down Bombay Airport on and from 26-7-05 which caused disruption in maintenance of aircrafts of Air India. Opposite parties were thus forced to cancel or reschedule some flights. This contention was refuted by counsel for complainant who submitted that complainant had to travel on 31-7-05 and the exact reason for cancellation of the flight on this date has not been specifically stated by Air India. There is some force in this argument because opposite parties have not adduced any evidence as to the exact cause of cancellation of flight on 31-7-05. Complainant had to take the scheduled flight on 31-7-05 from Calicut to Riyadh. The statement that the flight was cancelled due to heavy rains at Bombay is not a sufficient and satisfactory explanation for cancellation of flight. Apart from the vague affirmation that Bombay Airport was closed on and from 26-7-05 opposite parties have not specifically stated on which date the Airport was declared to be open after such closure if any. We are able to conclude that opposite parties have not established the exact reason for cancellation of the flight and therefore Air India cannot take refuge of the defence that flight was cancelled due to circumstances beyond their control or vis major. According to complainant he came to know of the cancellation only after reaching Calicut Airport on 31-7-05. If the cause of cancellation of flight was such that stated by opposite parties, they ought to have informed the complainant well in advance. Every airline is supposed to intimate the cancellation of flight or delay, in advance, to each and every ticket holder so that their inconvenience can be minimised. The omission on the part of Air India to inform the complainant well in time about the cancellation of flight is unjustifiable.<br /> 5. It's the say of complainant, that on cancellation of flight, Air India offered alternate arrangement to complainant and some other passengers, who had to reach Saudi Arabia urgently. The arrangement was that complainant and fellow passengers could take the flight to Bahrain next morning, and travel by road to Saudi Arabia from Bahrain Airport. Air India assured to arrange all facilities, and meet all expenses including their transit visa fees and expenses for conveyance from Bahrain to Saudi. Believing these assurances complainant and other sixteen passengers took the Air India flight No.A1 957 and flew to Bahrain on 01-8-05. Ext.A3 amply proves the assurances made by Air India to passengers who opted to accept their offer of alternative arrangement. The main grievance of the complainant is that Air India stepped back from it's assurances. Passengers including complainant were left stranded and high and dry in Bahrain Airport. Air India failed to make arrangements and pay expenses for their transit visa and conveyance. Opposite parties refute these allegations by relying upon Ext.B1 and B2. Ext.B1 is the receipt issued by Ministry of Bahrain for the payment of 2 BD (Bahrain Dinar) towards transit visa fees of complainant. Though Ext.B1 is issued in the name of complainant it was in the custody of opposite party and produced by opposite party. According to opposite party Ext.B1 sufficiently proved that complainant was speaking false. This was controverted by counsel for complainant who submitted that what actually happened was that, the amount was collected from among complainant and other passengers and given to Air India (Bahrain) who paid it on behalf of complainant and others. The receipts in their names therefore happened to be issued to Air India for this reason. Both sides raise rival claims as to the payment of transit visa fees. Before arriving at a conclusion as to which of this version is true we consider it necessary to analyse the subsequent events. Complainant further alleges that opposite parties did not make any arrangement for their conveyance by road from Bahrain Airport to Saudi. According to complainant after wandering in the airport for several hours and running about making enquiries as to the arrangements he realised that Air India has not made any arrangements for their conveyance to Saudi. Complainant and other passengers decided to leave by themselves and availed service of Saudi Bahrain Transport Company and travelled to Alkobar by bus (Saudi). The expenses were collected from friends and relatives and shared among themselves. Opposite parties refute these allegations and claim that complainant and other sixteen passengers travelled by the vehicle of Saudi-Bahrain Transport Company that was arranged by opposite parties and that the expenses were also met by opposite parties. Opposite parties place reliance on Ext.B2 which is a letter issued by air India-Bahrain to Air India-Calicut. Ext..B2 is dated, 25-9-06 and is seen issued in response to the enquiry regarding the complaint lodged by the complainant herein. It dismays us that opposite parties have placed reliance upon such a letter to prove their case. This letter according to us is nothing but protrusion of the version filed and does not help in any way to establish the case of opposite parties. Admittedly complainant and fellow passengers travelled from Bahrain Airport to Saudi Arabia by Saudi-Bahrain Transport Company (SABTCO). Ext.A6 is the receipt issued by this Company for payment of SR 930 (Saudi Riyal) as charges for the journey from Bahrain Airport to Khobar. Counsel for opposite party challenged the veracity of Ext.A6 on the grounds that it is not issued to complainant and that it is not produced by the person to whom it is issued. On perusal Ext.A6 is seen issued to one Abdulla Edachery. The definite and consistent case of complainant is that he along with sixteen other passengers traveled from Bahrain Airport to Khobar in SABTCO bus and they shared the expenses. If that be so, the receipt can be issued only to one person. Admittedly Abdulla Edachery is one among the sixteen passengers who traveled along with complainant. His name appears fourth in the list of passengers stated by opposite parties in Ext.B2. For these reasons we hold Ext.A6 as genuine and acceptable. Soon after reaching Saudi Arabia complainant brought notice of the grievance and hardships suffered by him to several authorities. Ext.A5 is the letter send through e-mail by complainant to different authorities and to his lawyer. Actually this is the first complaint lodged by the complainant. The sufferings and hardships endured by him is narrated in Ext.A5 in his own words. Copy of Ext.A5 has been sent by complainant to Chairman, Air India, Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Government of India, Mr. Jagdish Titlar – Minister NRI – government of India, Indian Embassy – Riyadh, Oommen Chandy, Chief Minister, Kerala, NORKA, District Collector, Malappuram. Ext.A5 is issued within two weeks of the complainant reaching Saudi. Immediateness of this notice sufficiently proves the case of complainant to be true and probable. Further Ext.A5 is fully consistent with the case put forward in the complaint. In Ext.A5 complainant has stated that the amount for transit visa fees of SR 20 (Saudi Riyal) was paid per head to some unknown person in the Airport who obtained transit visa for them. From the above discussions we find that complainant has paid for his transit visa fees and also incurred the expenses for the conveyance from Bahrain Airport to Saudi. We are able to conclude that opposite parties failed to make necessary arrangement at Bahrain Airport as assured by them. It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Commission in Air India Ltd. Vs. M.K. Abdul Majeed R.P.No.1136/02 decided on 26-9-03 (1986-05 NC & SC on consumer cases Part VI page 8964 (NS) that failure to make alternative arrangement after announcement of cancellation of flight amounts to deficiency in service. From the above discussions we have no hesitation to conclude that opposite parties failed to provide adequate alternative arrangements to complainant after cancellation of flight. We find opposite parties deficient in service.<br /> 6. Point (ii):-<br /> Opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant for their deficiency. Fourth opposite party is the travel agent through whom complainant has booked the tickets. No specific case is made out against fourth opposite party. We hold first to third opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant and fourth opposite party is exonerated from liability. Complainant claims Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.15,000/- towards expenses incurred for travelling from Bahrain to Saudi. According to complainant the amount was collected from friends and relatives and it was shared among them. Ext.A6 receipt is issued to Abdulla Edachery and there is no evidence that the whole amount was incurred by complainant. The claim of Rs.2,00,000/- according to us is highly inflated and exaggerated. Complainant and other passengers travelled to Bahrain only on the assurances made by opposite parties. The act of opposite parties dumping the passengers in an alien land and leaving them to their own destiny is horribly harsh. The turbulence and turmoil undergone by complainant, in an unfamiliar territory by the irresponsible act of Air India has to be definitely compensated. Only one complainant among the seventeen passengers has come forward to eke out his grievance. Such exploitations continue only because people bear the fraud and deceit played on them silently and seldom do they voice for their rights. It is high time Airlines changed their attitude towards passengers. Most of the people employed abroad meet with such or deals. Instead of complaining and fighting, the consumers attempt to forget their agony on the wrong belief that it is futile to fight against such mighty giants like Air India. The result is that the unscrupulous exploitation continues. The persons employed abroad are a great source of income to Air India. It is a disturbing fact that these consumers have to suffer so much due to the shabby and insensitive attitude of Air India. We consider that complainant is entitled to Rs.25,000/- towards the deficiency committed by opposite parties. Complainant has to be reasonably compensated for the mental agony, harassment and emotional sufferings which we quantify to a sum of Rs.6,000/-.<br /> <br /> 7. In the result, we allow the complaint and order opposite parties one to three to jointly and severally pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) as compensation and Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only) towards mental agony and hardships together with costs of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> <br /> Dated this 13th day of June, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil <br /> Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A6<br /> Ext.A1 : General Power of attorney dated, 03-5-2006 executed by<br /> complainant to Hamza Haji.M.P.<br /> Ext.A2 : Copy of the lawyer notice dated, 24-8-05 send by complainant's<br /> counsel to opposite parties.<br /> Ext.A3 : Reply notice dated, 08-9-05 send by opposite parties to <br /> complainant's counsel. <br /> Ext.A4 : Flight ticket dated, 16-6-05 issued by opposite party to complainant.<br /> Ext.A5 : Complaint dated, 14-8-05 by complainant to opposite parties. <br /> Ext.A6 : Receipt Voucher issued by Saudi Bahrain Transport Company for <br /> payment of SR 930 (Saudi Riyal) as charges for the journey from <br /> Bahrain Airport to Al-Khobar. <br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1 and B2<br /> Ext.B1 : Receipt issued by Ministry of Bahrain for the payment of 2 BD <br /> (Bahrain Dinar) towards transit visa fees of complainant.<br /> Ext.B2 : Letter dated, 25-9-06 issued by Air India-Bahrain to Air India-Calicut.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER