BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. P. SUDHIR                                       :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                                  : MEMBER

C.C. No. 220/2013 Filed on 06.06.2013

ORDER DATED: 30.03.2016

Complainant:

John Mathai, S/o Mathai Kutty residing at Lily Sadanam, Aylara P.O, 691 3122, Yeroor, Kollam.

                             (By Adv. R. Ram Mohan)                          

Opposite parties:

1. The Emirates Group, Emirates Airline, Garhoud, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, represented by its Managing Director.

2. Emirates Airlines Town Office, T.C 30/2662, Geethanjali Buildings, Vazhuthacaud, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram-14 represented by its Manager.

3. Mr. Samantha D’Souza, Customer Affairs Head, The Emirates Group, Emirates Airline, Garhoud, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

                      (By Adv. Sandeep T. George)

This case having been heard on 15.01.2016, the Forum on 30.03.2016 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. P. SUDHIR:  PRESIDENT

The case of the complainant is that complainant frequently traverses from India to Dubai in connection with his official and personal wants.  The complainant is recognized as a frequent flyer of the 1^st opposite party bearing the Frequent flyer No. EK 104969071.  On 22.10.2012, at 12.30 pm IST , a business meeting was scheduled by the complainant with the two delegates of a Chine firm, Impact China, in his company office at Mostafawi Building, Bur Dubai.  The said meeting was for the purpose of renewing a business contract for the year 2013, between the complainant and impact China, with regard to the import of household furniture.  For the same, the complainant had booked two suits in Hayath Regency, Dubai, by shelling out Rs. 89,000/-.  For attending the said meeting the complainant had availed a flight ticket from the 1^st opposite party for traversing Trivandrum to Dubai on 22.10.2012 in Flight No. EK 522, vide booking reference ICDUHS.  The scheduled departure of the said flight was supposed to be at 4.30 am IST on 22.10.2012 and the arrival was to be at 8.30 am.  However the above said flight was cancelled by the 1^st opposite party at the eleventh hour without any prior intimation or offering any genuine explanation to the complainant even after the complainant made earnest enquiries with the opposite parties.  The said flight was rescheduled only on 23.10.2012, at 4.30 am IST.  It is heavily denounced hereby for the fact that the 1^st opposite party did not make an effort to provide any other alternative flight for the complainant to Dubai from any other airports in India, even after he explained that his presence in Dubai was highly inevitable that day.  The said scenario eventually brought forth enormous financial loss and emotional distress to the complainant.  The said business meeting that was scheduled on 22.10.2012 got cancelled due to the negligent and irresponsible attitude that was met out by the 1^st opposite party.  In fact, the aforementioned delegates visited Dubai on the said date solely for the purpose of renewing the business contract with the complainant which was worth Twenty Seven Crores Ninety five Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand Indian rupees.  However due to the aforementioned untoward incident, the complainant was forced to postpone the conclusion of the said contract which had brought a loss of Three lakhs fifty thousand Indian rupees.  The complainant had been subjected to humiliation by the 1^st opposite party and trust and reputation he had with the Chinese firm had been irreparably lost.  Moreover, the mental trauma and agony which the complainant had been subjected as a result of the unbecoming and negligent attitude of the 1^st opposite party is inexplicable.  The complainant issued a legal notice through his counsel to both the opposite parties seeking forth to get him compensated for the damages suffered by him due to the negligent acts of the 1^st opposite party.  On finding that the said lawyer’s notice failed to invoke any sort of response from the side of the opposite parties, except for an e-mail that was sent by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant’s lawyer setting forth untenable reasons.  The opposite parties, thus, brought forth enormous financial loss, emotional distress and mental agony to the complainant.  Complainant approached this forum for getting a relief of compensation for a tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the damge sustained and Rs. 10,000/- towards costs of the proceedings. 

Notice sent to opposite parties.  Opposite parties appeared and filed version and contested the matter.  The version of the opposite parties is that the delay of the flight EK 523 from Trivandrum to Dubai on October 22, 2012 was delayed due to a technical fault wherein there was a breakdown in the landing mainly due to a leaking oil seal of the aircraft, and until the same was rectified, the aircraft could not be allowed to take off.  The repairs took extraordinary time as spare parts had to be brought in, and since there was the delay, the crew had to rest as the flying hours as stipulated under law would have exceeded that what is mandated.  This was beyond the control of the carrier.  As safety of passengers is of paramount importance the aircraft could not be airborne till such time the defect was rectified.  Thus the act complained of was beyond the control of the carrier and thus no compensation can be claimed for such incidents.  The complainant was a regular flyer with this opposite party and as a matter of goodwill and friendly customer relations, this opposite party had agreed to credit 40000 skyward miles to the frequent flyer account of the complainant.  Such miles could be used by the complainant towards redemption for purchase of tickets, upgrades and other facilities as offered under the frequent flyer programme of this opposite party.  That the complainant refused the said offer which was made immediately and prior to the filing of the present complaint.  This was offered only as a matter of courtesy and goodwill without admission of any liability, or acknowledgement that the delay was due to any fault of the opposite party.  The complainant has made a bald statement of the losses he suffered.  Despite missing his meeting as claimed, he still went the next day when the aircraft was ready, though there was a delay, and the fact that he stayed till his scheduled date of departure from Dubai is indicative that his business could not have suffered, as people are used to delays and would have accommodated any request to stay for an additional day.  That no evidence has been annexed to the complaint to show that the complainant suffered loss of business or the rent of hotel accommodation as claimed.  Since no other flights were available for the complainant to travel on from Trivandrum to Dubai on October 22, 2013 he was accordingly accommodated on the flight the next day, which the complainant accepted and travelled on.  Opposite party is not aware and cannot be aware that the complainant is the chairman of the Exclusive Group of Companies in Dubai as alleged as no proof of the same has been annexed to the complaint.  Opposite party states that no evidence has been produced or annexed to the complaint in respect of the alleged meetings fixed or towards the reservation of two suites at the Hyatt Regency Hotel, as alleged in the complaint.  This opposite party states that the complainant was booked for travel on the flight of this opposite party from Trivandrum to Dubai on October 22, 2012 and the return journey from Dubai to Trivandrum was on November 12, 2012.  It is denied that the reservation of the flight was made solely for the purpose of attending the alleged meeting.  It is pertinent to note that the complainant’s return journey was only on November 12, 2012 which clearly indicates that he stayed back in Dubai and completed his work and thereafter returned back to Trivandrum.  This opposite party states that there was no alternative flight available for this opposite party to accommodate the complainant.  The fact that he agreed to travel a day later shows that he was willing to travel in any case.   The complainant agreed and accepted to travel on the next day and travelled from Trivandrum to Dubai on October 23,2012.  That no evidence has been lead or annexed to the complaint to show that the alleged meeting of the complainant was cancelled or that the complainant suffered business losses as alleged.  Opposite party states that in response to the legal notice this opposite party had apologized to the complainant in respect of the delay in flight EK 523 on October 22, 2012 and explained to him that the said cancellation of the flight was due to operational reasons.  This opposite party as a gesture of goodwill and keeping in mind friendly customer relations offered to credit 40000 skyward miles to the frequent flyer account of the complainant, which miles could be redeemed towards purchase of tickets, upgrades or any other facility as offered under the frequent flyer programme of this opposite party.  Despite the offer made to the complainant, the complainant has refused to accept the said offer and has filed by the present complaint claiming loss of business and reimbursement of hotel expenses, when no evidence or documents to the said effect have been annexed to the complaint.  It is denied by the opposite party that an unfair trade practice has been adopted by them as alleged or that due to cancellation of the flight the complainant suffered losses, as alleged.  It is denied that the complainant suffered losses/damages of Rs. 5,39,000/- as falsely alleged.  No material/evidence has been placed on record to show that the complainant suffered such losses, which should have been attached to the complaint, which clearly indicates that no loss/damages has been suffered by the complainant.  This was mere speculative losses that he is claiming.   

Issues:

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

Issues (i) & (ii):- Complainant filed chief examination affidavit and Exts. P1 to P3 marked.   Complainant cross examined by opposite parties.  Opposite parties filed chief examination affidavit.  Perusing the evidence, it is seen that complainant has booked ticket for the flight of opposite parties from Trivandrum to Dubai on 22.10.2012 and flight delayed due to technical fault which is beyond the control of opposite parties.  Opposite parties have made accommodation in the next flight and the complainant has accepted the same.  For the inconvenience caused to the complainant, opposite parties have offered 40000 skyward miles to be credited to the complainant’s account.  These miles could be used for purchase of free tickets, upgrades or any other services as per skyward programme which the complainant refused to accept.  Apart from the Ext. P1 notice nothing is brought out by the complainant to establish his case to get damages.  There may be inconvenience caused to the complainant for the delay of the flight but it cannot be construed as deficiency as per the reported cases Interglobe Vs. Satchianand-Supreme Court III CPJ (2011) 1 (SC), Narendra Singh Vs. Air India II (2013) CPJ 676 (NC), Dr. A. Paneer Vs. NEPC Airlines II (1999) 157 Tamil Nadu State Commission, P. Gopinathan Vs. Air India I (1992) CPJ 152 (NC), Arun Sangawan Vs. Indian Airlines & anr. IV (2012) CPJ 87 (NC) and Proxima Steel Forge Ltd. & anr. Vs. Air India & Ors. IV (2005) CPJ 181 (NC).  No evidence produced by the complainant that he requested to arrange flight from Kochi or Kozhikkode.  As per Ext. P3 the next flight to Dubai of 3^rd opposite party is on 23^rd October 2012 which was accepted by the complainant without any objection.   We are of the opinion that complainant failed to prove his case for damages.  It is open to complainant to accept the offer of 40000 skyward miles from the opposite parties on request and opposite parties are directed to issue the same on request of the complainant.  We are of the opinion that complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed and hence complaint dismissed without cost.

In the result, complaint is dismissed without cost.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. 

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30^th day of March 2016.

         Sd/-

P.SUDHIR                             : PRESIDENT

         Sd/-

R. SATHI                               : MEMBER

          Sd/-

LIJU B. NAIR                        : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 220/2013

APPENDIX

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

          PW1  - John Mathai

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

P1     - Lawyer’s notice dated 10.12.2012

P2     - E-mail sent by complainant to O.P dated 31.12.2012

P3     - Flight Ticket No. 1762066795668

P3(a) - Schedule of flight operating Kerala to Dubai dated 22.10.2013

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                             NIL

                                                                                                      Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb