PER SHRI. S.M. RATNAKAR – HON’BLE PRESIDENT
1) The brief facts of the complaint are as follows -
The Complainant had purchased the ticket for his journey on 22nd November, 2008 by Flight AI-144 from New York N.J., Liberty International Airport to Mumbai by (J) Class on payment of due consideration. The Complainant was given Seat No.15A for the said travel. The Complainant therefore, a consumer under Sec. 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (referred to as the said Act). According to the Complainant, the Opposite Parties are guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under Sec. 2(1)(g) and (r) of the said Act. It is alleged that when the Complainant travelled by Flight of Opposite Parties, a short while after take off, the Complainant found that the entertainment system for the seat was not working. The same remained unattended even on informing the Cabin Crew. Even at London nothing was done by the Cabin Crew in this regard though promised. According to the Complainant, he was denied the entertainment facility for a long distance flight more than 17 hours. The Opposite Party ought to have checked whether the system should have been in working condition prior to departure from New York and ought to have repaired while the Aircraft was at London Airport for about 2 hours.
2) The Complainant wanted to buy some duty free items in the Aircraft. When two Glenlivet bottles were ordered by the Complainant, they were delivered to the Complainant with over charged amount. In the duty free brochure, the aforesaid goods were advertised for $24 each, if two bottles are purchased. However, the Cabin Crew collected $28 each i.e. $56, instead of the advertised cost of $48 by saying that the published offer was no longer valid. The matter was therefore taken up with the Chairman-Managing Director, Air India vide letter dtd.21/01/2009 which is marked at Annexure ‘C-1’. Then the Complainant received reply dtd.17/03/2009 from Opposite Party No.2 apologizing the inconvenience experienced by him during the aforesaid travel which is marked at Annexure ‘C-II’. According to the Complainant, the Opposite Parties refunded the excess amount of USD.08 which were erroneously collected from him.
3) According to the Complainant, there was complete failure and shortcomings in quality and quantity of standards which were required to be maintained by the Opposite Parties in pursuance of the contract pertaining to the service. The Complainant thereby suffered severe inconvenience and mental trauma on account of the negligence on the part of Opposite Parties. The Complainant therefore, prayed for damages and compensation from the Opposite Parties to the extent of Rs.5 Lacs and cost and incidental expenses incurred by the Complainant.
4) The Opposite Parties contested the Complainant by filing their written statement. The Opposite Parties denied allegations of deficiency in services and unfair trade practices. It is contended that the Complainant was knowing well that the entertainment system in the flight is fully computerized and failure of computerized system are not within the control of Opposite Parties and refund of US $ 8 on account of alleged overcharging for two Glenlivet bottles purchased by the Complainant from Flight Purser, were already refunded to the Complainant. It is contended that the Complainant is pursuing false and baseless complaint under the Act of Consumer. It is contended that the complaint filed by the Complainant in his personal capacity against the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed with cost. The Opposite Parties have denied all the other allegations made to the complaint.
5) Both the parties have filed their affidavits in support of their contention.
6) We heard the Ld.Advocate Ms.Rashmi Manne for the Complainant and Smt. Pradnya Lade, Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Parties. The Advocate for the Complainant has drawn our attention to annexures filed with the complaint and relied observation in the cases as below –
1) S.N. Chawla V/s. Indian Airlines, I(2)07 CPJ 408.
2) Consumer Complaint No.MSDF/441/2009, decided by Mumbai Suburban
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bandra, in the matter of Mr.
Deepak Soni V/s. The British Airways & 1 Anr.
3) Express Travels V/s. M.R. Shah & Ors., III (2002) CPJ 39 (NC).
She submitted that considering the case made out by the Complainant and the Opposite Party in annexure C-III, have regretted the services rendered to the Complainant vide its letter dtd.17/03/2009, the suitable compensation as deemed fit may be awarded alongwith cost in favour of the Complainant
7) Advocate Smt. Pradnya Lade submitted that the deficiency in service of entertainment system at the relevant time was beyond control of the Opposite Parties as the flight had take off the New York Airport and the said defect could not be cured. She submitted that the Opposite Party No.2 did not personally liable to pay any compensation to the Complainant. It is submitted that the complaint is liable to be dismissed as the Opposite Party No.1 has refunded USD 8 to the Complainant, later on which were overcharged from the Complainant.
8) On perusal of complaint & written statement & documents on record, the following points arise for our consideration and our findings thereon are as under -
Point No.1 : Whether the Complainant has proved the deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties ?
Findings : Yes.
Point No.2 : Whether the Complainant is entitled for compensation and cost of the proceedings from the Opposite Parties ? if yes, what should be the quantum ?
Findings : Yes, Rs.2000/- towards deficient service of entertainment during travel, Rs.500/- towards the compensation for embracement and mental agony suffered by the Complainant, Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the complaint.
Reasons :-
Point No.1 & 2 : From annexure ‘C’ dtd.17/03/2009, the Opposite Party No.1 under the signature of Opposite Party No.2 has conveyed the Complainant its regretness for deficient service of entertainment system as well as overcharging for two bottle of Glenlivet which he had purchased during the Flight from duty free shopping. It is undisputed that the Complainant has received USD 08 which were erroneously collected by the Opposite Party No.1. Considering these facts, we hold that as the Complainant has suffered some mental agony and inconvenience caused because of non-operational entertainment system for about 17 hours during his travels and for that he is entitle for compensation. We are of the candid view that the Complainant is entitled for compensation on that count of Rs.2,000/- from the Opposite Party No.1.
It also appears that the Complainant had suffered hardship and inconvenience as alleged in his evidence during his travel from New York to Mumbai and on that count we hold that as the Complainant has suffered embracement for deficient service provided by the Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Party No.1 in our view is liable to compensate the Complainant to the tune of Rs.500/-.
We further hold that as the Complainant by his letter annexure C-3, dtd.24/03/2009 had requested the Opposite Party No.1 that it should offer an adequate compensation for denial of services and inconvenience caused to him, which the Opposite Party No.1 had not responded favourably to the Complainant and ultimately he was required to file this complaint for his grievances before this Forum in view of the said fact the Opposite Party No.1 is also liable to pay cost of Rs.1,000/- in favour of the Complainant.
In our view the Complainant has claimed exorbitant damages and compensation in the complaint. According to us, the authorities cited by the Advocate for the Complainant are not appropriately applicable to the facts of the present case for grant of huge claim made by the Complainant. We find that whatever amount as discussed above would be just and proper in this dispute.
In our view, the Opposite Party No.2 is the employee of Opposite Party No.1 and she cannot be directly held liable to the claim made by the Complainant against Opposite Party No.1. It appears that whatever correspondence made by the Opposite Party No.2 is made on behalf of Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant cannot be said consumer of the Opposite Party No.2. Therefore, the Opposite Party No.2 can not be held liable for the claim made by the Complainant in this complaint.
In the result we answer all the points accordingly and pass following order –
O R D E R
i. Complaint No.270/2009 is partly allowed against Opposite Party No.1 only.
ii. Opposite Party No.1 shall pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rs. Two Thousand Only) to the Complainant for deficient service provided by the Opposite Party No.1 to the Complainant.
iii. Opposite Party No.1 shall pay an amount of Rs.500/- (Rs.Five Hundred Only) to the Complainant towards the embracement and mental agony suffered by the Complainant.
iv. Opposite Party No.1 shall pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rs.One Thousand Only) to the Complainant towards cost of this proceedings.
v. Opposite Party No.1 shall comply with this order within 2 months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the Opposite Party No.1 shall pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the above awarded amount from the date of expiry of 2 months till realization.
vi. Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.
