Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/66/2016

R.Mukund - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Executive Director SR Air India Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

R.Rajaramani

28 Feb 2022

ORDER

                                                                  Complaint presented on 17.03.2016

                                                                    Date of disposal          : 28.02.2022

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. J. JUSTIN DAVID, M.A., M.L.      : PRESIDENT

THIRU. S. BALASUBRAMANIAN, M.A., M.L.          : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.66/2016

 

DATED THIS MONDAY THE 28^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                                

R.Mukund,

S/o. Ramamurthi,

Now at Melbourne, Australia,

Permanently at

No.14, Poonagar Main Road,

Reddiarpalayam, Pondichery – 10.

 

                                                                                                   .. Complainant.                                                                   ..Vs..

 

1.The Chief Executive Officer,

Yatra. Com Pvt Ltd.,

202 Capital Towers 2^nd Floor,

Kodambakkam High Road,

Nungambakkam, Chennai – 34.

 

2. The Executive Director SR,

Air India Ltd., THQ Building,

Airline House, Meenambakkam, Chennai – 27.

 

.....Opposite Parties

Counsel for Complainant                          : M/s.R.Rajaramani, R.Roopa,

                                                                      S.Venugopal

 

Counsel for   1^st opposite party                   : Mr.V.Rajagopal, V.Ramanan

(Ex-parte 21.02.2018) Non filing of     Proof Affidavit

 

Counsel for   2^nd  opposite party                 : M/s. N.G.R.Prasad, K.Srinivasa

                                                                      Murthy, R.Jayabarathi

 

ORDER

THIRU. J. JUSTIN DAVID, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to  pay a sum of Rs.38,627/- towards balance of ticket cost and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards legal expenses.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

The complainant is an engineering graduate.  The complainant planned to pursue his post graduation in Deakin University at Melbourne.  The university confirms his selection to the university.  Therefore the complainant planned his journey from Chennai to Melbourne.  The complainant had booked an air ticket on 01.11.2014 from Chennai to Singapore by Air India flight 346 D.P. scheduled departures at 11.25 a.m on 06.11.2014.  The complainant had planned the journey time and date so as to reach the university on time.  As per his schedule of plan he would reach Singapore on 06.11.2014 and from Singapore to Melbourne by jet star scheduled departure at 20.00 hrs on 06.11.2014 at Singapore and the said flight reaches Melbourne on 07.11.2014 at 6.45 a.m.  The complainant booked for both the flights under a single ticket bearing No.58543496121, PNR No. 55PX7U for Rs. 38,000/- only. The complainant with great anxiety and happiness he reported in Chennai airport on 06.11.2014 at 7.10 a.m after completion of all formalities for the scheduled departure of the flight.  On 06.11.2014 till 8.30 a.m. there was no communication either form the 1^st opposite or 2^nd opposite party, regarding the information of delay in flight timings. The ticket was booked through the first opposite party for which the first opposite party had collected amounts towards his service charges.  The 1^st opposite party has got an obligation and bounden duty and inform about the flight and ensure that their client board flight and reaches the destination. The liability of first opposite party commences from boarding of flight at Chennai and lasts till destination. The complainant was left in lurch by not getting any responsible reply about the delay of flight and he was wandering in Chennai airport.  The opposite parties created a mental stress and depression.  The complainant states that he has to join the college on 07.11.2014 and has to be present for the orientation programme of the university in time.  Therefore the complainant informed his urgency to the 2^nd opposite party and the officials of the 2^nd opposite party replied that they would make alternative arrangements to take jet star flight at Singapore.  The opposite arty was not able to make alternative arrangements and their inability to make arrangements was recorded in the ticket.  The 2^nd opposite party has endorsed their inability in the ticket. The flight was delayed by two hours and 16 minutes. It is pertinent to state that because of the delayed departure of Air India flight, the complainant was constrained to miss the connecting flight from Singapore to Melbourne.  Therefore in view of the urgency the complainant had no alternative except booking a ticket no. ETKT 61858019133678 for RS. 61,200/- from Singapore to Melbourne by Singapore airlines and paid huge amount of Rs. 61,200/- through credit card purchase the complainant got a ticket and continued his travel.  The whole mess had occasioned only due to the deficiency of the opposite parties.  The conduct of the respondents is a clear case of deficiency of service and the complainant has to be compensated for the mental trauma and damages for the additional cost incurred for air ticket.

2.WRITTENVERSION FILED BY THE 1^st  OPPOSITE PARTY  IN BRIEF:

          Yatra online Private Limited (Opposite party No.1) which is an online ticketing service provider and travel agent, providing facility through the medium of internet, phone and retail outlets.  The complainant can only file this Consumer complaint against opposite party No.2, which in true senses can be called the service provider to the complainant. The complainant’s Chennai to Singapore flight timings, mentioned on the flight booking voucher issued by answering opposite party were the same as provided by 2^nd opposite party to the answering opposite party and the booking made and flight tickets issued by the answering opposite to the complainant were correct and valid in every respect.  It was 2^nd opposite party  that rescheduled and deferred the complainant’s flight for travelling from Chennai to Singapore unilaterally and without prior intimation to both, the complainant and the answering opposite party. The complaint is liable to be dismissed outright for no cause of action lying against the answering opposite party.     

3.WRITTENVERSION FILED BY THE 2^nd OPPOSITE PARTY  IN BRIEF:

Admittedly, the complainant booked his tickets through the 1^st opposite party M/s. Yatra.com Pvt. Ltd. a private web portal having their office at Chennai.  The complainant had paid the money only to the above named travel portal and not to this opposite party directly. The complainant had filed the case after a tie gap of nearly 2 years from the date of event.  Flight AI 346 dt/ 06.11.2014 was scheduled to operate on Chennai-Singapore sector at 11.25 hrs local time with the income aircraft on flight AI 347 from Singapore the was scheduled to arrive at 1025 hrs. Unfortunately on 06 Nov 2014, the incoming flight was delayed at Singapore itself resulting in delay to its return flight by which the complainant had made a booking.  Consequently, Chennai Singapore flight AI 346 was re-scheduled to depart at 1215 hrs/ local time/  the delay was beyond this opposite party’s control. The 2^nd opposite party’s call centre started informing passengers by sending SMS to the mobile telephone numbers recorded in the PNR (passenger name record) at 0431 hrs on 06 nov 2014 and also followed it up with telephonic information between 0530 hrs and 0830 hrs.  E-mail was sent to passengers at 0950hrs wherever given. The complainant had not registered his mobile telephone number. Email address in the PNR and therefore did not get the information about flight delay.  As per PNR history of the complainant. Only yatra.com contact number had been registered and the message could be naturally relayed on that number by the call centre of this opposite party but as per the call centre remark in the PNR, there was no response even on that number.  If the complainant had registered his mobile number and email id at the time of booking, he would have got the message much before he left for airport. Incidentally the flight delay information was immediately updated on all the information display points at airport right from the entrance to the check in area and beyond.  Even when the flights get delayed. The checks in counters are opened as per scheduled tie in order to accept the reporting/waiting passengers and to attend to them etc.  This was done on that day also.  The efforts made by this opposite party are evident from the endorsement made in the complainant ticket copy.  The PNR history remark column reflects the attempts made to transfer to jet airways flight (9W022) on FIM ( Flight Interruption  Manifest).  But unfortunately the jet airways later expressed their inability in the last minute to accommodate the complainant as their flight became full. The opposite party airlines flight left Chennai at 1340 hours as against the scheduled departure of 1125 hours.  The complainant also travelled.  Upon reaching Singapore had the complainant approached the jet star airlines counter at Singapore with whom he was accommodated him in their next flight.  Therefore the complainant cannot blame this opposite party for his purchasing the ticket from Singapore airlines for his travel from Singapore to Melbourne.  This opposite party staff had taken every effort to make arrangement for the complainants travel from Chennai to Singapore around the original departure time so that he could travel by the jet star flight leaving Singapore at 20.00 hours (Singapore time).  However, it did not materialise as other airlines operating form Chennai at that time were full and could not offer seat to him. The delay to their flight AI 346 was totally unexpected and beyond the control of them. The complainants travel by this opposite party airlines is subject to provision contained in condition of carriage.  This information has clearly been printed on the ticket and the itinerary receipt of the complainants as well. This opposite party is neither negligent nor guilty of any deficiency.  They have taken every effort to convince the complainant about the situation and he was witnessing the efforts taken as well.  It is the complainant who failed to appreciate the situation. Therefore there is no deficiency in service.

4. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:    

1.Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

2.whether the opposite parties are liable to pay the balance  ticket cost of   

     Rs.38,627/-

 

4. Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation and cost

3. To what other relief, the complainant is entitled?

05. POINT No. 1 to 3

          The complainant booked a air ticket on 01.11.2014  to travel from Chennai to Singapore by Air India Flight No.346 schedule to departure  from Chennai Air Port on 06.11.2014 at 11.25 a.m. and also booked Air Ticket from Singapore to Melbourn by Jet Star  scheduled to departure at Singapore Airport on 06.11.2014  20.00 hours.  The complainant booked for both the flight under a single ticket bearing No.58543496121, PNR No.55PX7U  for Rs.38,000/-.  The opposite parties also admitted the booking of Air ticket by the complainant.

          06. The case of the complainant is that the complainant reported in Chennai Air Port on 06.11.2014 at 7.10 a.m and completed  of all formalities and waited till 8.30 a.m and there was no information for delay in flight timings, that  the complainant did not found any desk officials of the 2^nd opposite party,  to ascertain about the status of the flight till 9.00 a.m and the same created mental stress and depression  to the complainant and that opposite parties was not able to make alternative arrangements and flight was delayed by 2 hours and 16 minutes.

          07. The 2^nd opposite party contended flight AI 346  dated 06.11.2014 was scheduled  to operate on Chennai Singapore sector at 11.25 hours  was   rescheduled because the incoming flight AI 347 from Singapore was scheduled to arrive at 10.25 hours was delayed at Singapore itself resulting in delay to its return flight and consequently Chennai Singapore flight AI 346 was rescheduled  to depart at 13.15 hours and delay was beyond the control of the opposite parties. The 2^nd opposite party clearly stated about the reason for the delay. The complainant also travels in the same flight after two hours 16 minutes delay and reached Singapore on 06.11.2014.

          08. The complainant alleged that because of the delayed departure of Air India Flight, The complainant was constrained to miss connecting flight from Singapore to Melbourne and  in view of the  urgency the complainant booked ticket No.ETKT 6185809133678 for Rs.61,200/- from Singapore to Melbourne by Singapore Airlines. The complainant   paid a sum Rs.61,200 for purchase of another ticket to travel from Singapore to Melbourne by Singapore Airlines. Ex.A2 is the copy of  Air Ticket.

          09. The 2^nd opposite party contended that the opposite parties Airlines Flight  left Chennai at 13.40 hours as against the scheduled departure 11.25 hours and the complainant also travelled in the flight, that upon reaching Singapore  if the complainant approached the Jet Star Airlines Counter at Singapore, then they would have accommodate him in their next flight and therefore the complainant cannot blame this opposite parties for his purchase of the ticket from Singapore Airlines for his travel from Singapore to Melbourne.

          10. The complainant originally booked Air Ticket at the Star Airlines to travel from Singapore to Melbourne, but the complainant upon reaching Singapore failed to approach the Jet Star Airlines Counter at Singapore. On the other hand the complainant had taken another ticket from Singapore Airlines to travel Singapore to Melbourne. If really the complainant approached the Jet Star Airlines Counter at Singapore they would have accommodate the complainant in the next flight.

          11. The complainant’s father written a letter under Right Information Act to the 2^nd opposite party to furnish information. The 2^nd opposite party also furnish the information on 09.01.2015. Ex.A4 is the Copy of the Information furnished by the 2^nd opposite party. In Ex.A4 the 2^nd opposite party stated

“The reschedule departure time of 1315 hrs. was informed to passengers wherever there was response on the contact number in the  Passenger Name Record Locator. The telephonic information was between 0530 hrs. and 0830 hrs. SMS was sent to passengers at 0431 hrs. E-mail was sent at 0950 hrs.”

Therefore the 2^nd opposite party informed through SMS to all the passengers regarding   change of timings of the flight No.346 from Chennai to Singapore. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of 2^nd opposite party. Further the opposite parties return the cost of ticket from Singapore to Melbourne of Rs.22,573/- to the complainant. Ex.A6 is the copy of refund order the complainant also received the refund.

          12. The complainant filed Ex.B7 regarding refund of the ticket amount  article:

         “10.2.3 Make a refund in accordance with the provision of Article 11: and shall be under no further liability to the passenger.

        Except in the case of its acts or omissions done with intent to cause damage or recklessly and  with knowledge that damage would probably result, Carrier shall not be liable for errors or omissions in timetables or other published schedules, or for representations made by employees, agent or representative or carrier as to the dates or times of departure or arrival or as to the operation of any flight”.

ARTICLE 11 – REFUNDS

11.1 GENERAL

      “On failure by Carrier to provide carriage in accordance with the Contract of carriage, or where the passenger requests a voluntary change of his or her arrangements, refund for an unused ticket or portion thereof shall be made by carrier in accordance with this article and with carrier’s Regulations”.

Therefore the 2^nd opposite party refunded balance ticket amount to the complainant as per the terms and conditions. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and opposite parties are not liable to pay Rs.30,627/- towards balance ticket cost and complainant is not entitled for compensation and cost.

13. POINT No. 4

Since the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result this complaint is dismissed. No Costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Assistant taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 28^th day of February 2022.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 01.11.2014          Ticket of the complaint bearing No.58543496121, PNR No.55PX7U for Rs.38,000/-

Ex.A2 dated 06.11.2014          Ticket No.ETKT 6185809133678 for Rs.61,200/- from Singapore to Melbourne

Ex.A3 dated 27.12.2014          Letter sent by complainant’s father under RTI

Ex.A4 dated 09.01.2015          Reply sent by the opposite parties

Ex.A5 dated 06.02.2015          Complaint given through citizen Consumer and Civil action group

Ex.A6 dated NIL                     Correspondence from opposite parties refunding Rs.22,573/-

Ex.A7 dated NIL                     Representation sent by complainant

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 1^st OPPOISTE PARTY

                                                …….. NIL …….

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF 2^nd OPPOSITE PARTY

Ex.B1dated 06.11.2014           Communication from IOCC viz. Integrated

                                                Operations Control Center

 

Ex.B2 dated NIL                      PNR History of the complainant

 

Ex.B3 dated 01.07.2015                   E-mail communication of the customer Service

Department dated 01.07.2015

 

Ex.B4 dated NIL                      Itinerary receipt

 

Ex.B5 dated NIL                      Call centre action report dated 02.01.2015 &  04.01.2015

 

Ex.B6 dated NIL                      Circular regarding maintenance of office records

 

Ex.B7 dated NIL                      Conditions of carriage

 

Ex.B8 dated 06.08.2010          Civil Aviation Requirement

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT