DATE OF FILING : 17.11.2015

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the  30th  day of  April, 2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL. P    MEMBER

CC NO.328/2015

Between

Complainants       :  1.  Sreekumar U., 

           S/o. Unnikrishna Panicker,

    Karatu House, 

    Vandanam P.O.,   Alappuzha.

    Presently residing at

    Quarters No.Type II/M, 

    PWD Quarters,  Near Dooradarshan,

    Painavu P.O., Idukki. 

2. Shyla P., W/o. Balachandran,

    Sneham, Railway Station Road,

    Thripunithura, Ernakulam.

    Presently residing at

   Quarters No.Type III/O,

    PWD Quarters,         

    Painavu P.O., Idukki. 

    (Both by Adv:  Babichen V. George)

And

Opposite Parties                                          :   1.  The Manager,

       Cyber Park, 

       Near Sreekrishna Temple,

       Thodupuzha P.O., Idukki.

       (By Adv:  G. Premnath)

  2.  The Duty Manager,

       Air India Airport Counter,

      Nedumbassery International Airport,

      Nedumbassery P.O.,

      Ernakulam.

      (By Advs: M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar,

Joson Manavalan, Kuryan Thomas,

Navod Prasannan & K.M. Sanu)

3.   The Area Marketing Manager,

       Air India Ltd., Airlines House,

      Durbar Hall Road, Kochi – 682 016.

4.  The Air India Ltd.,

     Airline House 113, 

     Gurudwara Rakabganj Road, 

     New Delhi – 110 001.         (cont....2)

-  2  -

     (By Advs: M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar,

Joson Manavalan, Kuryan Thomas,

Navod Prasannan & K.M. Sanu)

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

Case of the complainant is that,

 

Complainants are senior teachers of Kendriya Vidyalaya, Painavu, Idukki.  To attend  a written test in Delhi, related to the promotion as Principals on 11.4.2015, the complainants booked two flight tickets from Kochi to Delhi well in advance on 24.2.2015 through 1st opposite party of the 4th opposite party.  The scheduled time of departure was 8 pm on 10.4.2015.  The complainants reached the airport at 6.45 pm on 10.4.2015 at Domestic Terminal.  The E-ticket issued by the 1st opposite party was shown there and the security officer therein directed the complainants to approach International Terminal of the airport.  The ticket issued by the 1st opposite party does not disclose the departure terminal.   The complainants managed to reach the International Terminal at sharp 7 pm.  The officers on terminal duty told them that the Delhi flight counter closed and rudely denied the Boarding pass.  

 

The complainants further averred that, the complainants explained the seriousness of situation, about the written test and their future, the officers of the check in counter mercilessly rejected the Boarding pass without any valid reason and thereby threw the complainants in utter darkness.  The complainant also approached 2nd opposite party.   At  that time, 2nd opposite party roared and shouted to her subordinates for allowing the complainants to enter the cabin.  Thereafter the complainants approached other officers of the 4th opposite party in the next 45 minutes.  None of the officials of 4th opposite party responded positively.  At the same time, the display board of the airport showed that their flight departed only on 8.45 pm instead of 8 pm. 

  

Complainants further contended that they are sick persons and suffering from various ailments and they are utter desperate and they found 

      (cont....3)

-  3  -

it difficult to walk and finally they came out of the airport at 9.30 pm.  The CC TV footage of the 2nd opposite party will definitely reveal these things.  The complainants placed their grievances in different authorities including Prime Minister's office and Civil Aviation Minister's Office.  Though the respective authorities forwarded the complaints to the opposite parties 3 and 4,  and the 3rd opposite party responded through e-mail by accepting certain contention of the complaint, at the same time stating untrue things harassing the complainants and protecting 2nd opposite party.  The complainants further averred that due to the negligent attitude of 2nd opposite party, complainant lost their exclusive chance for the test of principalship, which is an added glory in their career.  The loss in chance for appearance in the said test which the complainants would have likely to be passed, if they appeared.  The victory of the said test would elevate them to the status of Class I officer of Kendriya Vidyalaya and there will be a hike of Rs.15000/- in their present salary and the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainants.  The shock and humiliation faced in the office of the 2nd opposite party caused much mental agony and sufferings to the complainants and their family.  Both the complainants were running pillar to post from 7.10 pm to 8.45 pm for no fault of them.  All the above explained acts of the opposite parties attributed from deficiency in service which they are liable to compensate.  The designation of Principal will fetch the complainants a salary of Rs.80000/- plus other benefits and both the complainants are having 8 more years service.  The loss in salary for the future 8 years would approximately amounts Rs.14,40,000/-.  Hence alleging deficiency in service against 1st opposite party, the complainant filed the petition claiming Rs.10 lakhs as damages and Rs.5 lakhs as compensation for mental agony and their sufferings and Rs.5000/- as litigation cost.  

 

Upon notice, opposite parties entered appearance and filed detailed reply version refuting the allegation levelled against them in the complaint.  In their version, 1st opposite party contended that at the time of booking and issuance of flight ticket, it was informed that the flight was international and the complainants should be reported at the concerned terminal before two hours of the proposed time of departure.  This opposite party is not liable to compensate the complainants and the averments in paragraph 4 to 9 are not within the knowledge of this opposite party and 

(cont....4)

-  4  -

moreover, there is absolutely no cause of action for filing this complaint and there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of this opposite party. 

 

In their reply version, opposite parties 2 and 4 totally denied the averments of the complainants and further contended that at present there is no designation as the Area Marketing Manager at the office of 4th opposite party and hence 3rd opposite party as arrayed in the complaint is liable to be deleted from the party array.  Opposite parties further contended that the profile and purpose of travel of the complainants are beyond their knowledge and admitted the booking of flight tickets as stated in the complaint.  The flight No.A1-47 was scheduled to depart from the International terminal and the check-in-counter of the International terminal closes 60 minutes prior to departure time.  In spite of same, several passengers were cleared for boarding till 7.16 pm and only then was the check-in-counter of the above said flight was closed   and till then the complainants did not report for boarding.  The complainants reported at the counter will beyond the time permitted and therefore, they were not issued boarding pass.  The averement to the effect that the staff of the 4th opposite party insulted the complainant and further harassed the complainants are all incorporated for the purpose of complaint and hence rejected.  The opposite party further contended that the complainants missed the flight due to the negligence from their part as they did not report for check-in within time. It was further submitted that the flight was delayed by sometime, as the incoming flight was delayed by 20 minutes and subsequently a hydraulics issue with the flight had to be rectified.  It is further stated that the complainants failed to report on time for the scheduled flight and therefore, they are not entitled to get full refund of the ticket.  Opposite party further denied the averment that the 2nd opposite party has stated untrue things harassing the complainants and for protecting 3rd opposite party.  Opposite party specifically denied the contention of each paragraph of the complaint.  Further contended that the averment that both the complainants were running pillar to post from 7.10 pm to 8.45 pm for no fault of their own is absolutely false and further averment that this incident severely affected the health of the 1st complainant, who is suffering serious heart disease is also denied by the opposite parties.  Opposite parties further denied the averment that, 2nd 

(cont....5)

-  5  -

opposite party and their staff mercilessly denied boarding pass to the complainants and 6 others in queue as early as 7.10 pm on 10.4.2015.  Opposite parties further contended that the complainants now approached the Forum raising fanciful claims only with an intention to mislead and to extract a substantial sum from the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  

 

Complainants and opposite parties adduced evidence by way of proof affidavit and documents.  2nd complainant and one witness were examined as PWs1and 2 respectively.  The documents which were produced were marked as Exts.P1 to P23.  Ext.P1 is the copy of air ticket dated 24.2.2015.  Ext.P2 is the copy of refund application.  Ext.P3 is the print out of the complaint registration details.  Ext.P4 copy of complaint against Air India authorities.  Ext.P5 is e-mail print out dated 23.4.2015.  Ext.P6 is the reply to the e-mail dated 30.5.2015.  Ext.P7 is the print out of e-mail submission dated 21.6.2015.  Ext.P8 is copy of complaint submitted before the Air India authorities dated 4.6.2015.  Ext.P9 is the remainder of the letter sent on 13.4.2015.  Ext.P10 is the application form for the post of Principal of 2nd complainant.  Ext.P11 is the admission card of 2nd complainant.  Ext.P12 is the admission card of 1st complainant.  Ext.P13 is the salary slip of 2nd complainant.  Ext.P14 is the print out of passenger current status enquiry.  Ext.P15 is the discharge card of 2nd complainant.  Ext.P16 is the copy of information sought under RTI and its reply.  Ext.P17 is the copy of discharge summary of 1st complainant.  Ext.P18 is the pay slip of 2nd complainant.  Ext.P19 is the pay-slip of one Maniyappan, Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Painavu.  Ext.P20 is the pay-slip of one Ramesh Chandra Meena, Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Painavu.  Ext.P21 is the report of Hindustan Times.  Ext.P22 is the salary certificate of 2nd complainant.  Ext.P23 is the certificate dated 9.3.2017.  

 

From the opposite side, one Sundaresh G. Naik, Commercial Officer of 2nd opposite party and 1st opposite party were examined as DWs1 and 2 respectively.  The documents produced are marked as Exts.R1 to R5.  Ext.R1 is the authorisation letter.  Ext.R2 is the itinerary receipt.  Ext.R3 is the details of last accepted passenger.  Ext.R4 is the document of ticket amount refund.  Ext.R5 is the details of last accepted passenger.  

 

Heard both sides. (cont....6)

-  6  -

The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitle to ?

 

The POINT :-  We have examined the entire materials on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. It was pleaded on behalf of the complainants that for the denied boarding, the complainants lost the opportunity to participate in an important examination and it would have certainly caused them a serious mental setback and heavy damages in their future.  The learned counsel further argued that the complainants reached the departure terminal of the air port before more than one hour of actual departure of the aircraft which was scheduled at 8 pm on 10.4.2015.  The e-ticket issued by the 1st opposite party shown there and the officers therein directed the complainants to reach International terminal of the airport.  The e-ticket issued by the 1st opposite party does not disclosed such a fact.  This is a serious latches from the part of 1st opposite party from whom the complainants booked their ticket.  Thereafter, the complainants managed to reach the International terminal at 7.10 pm and stood first in the queue, but the security denied to issue boarding pass on the reason that Delhi Counter closed.  Thereafter the complainants approached each and every officers of 2nd opposite party, but the staff of  the 2nd opposite party harassed them by using filthy words and they remained there till 9.30 pm.  None of the officers of 4th opposite party responded positively.

 

The learned counsel further argued that being sick person suffering from various ailments, both the complainants were utter desperate and they suffered a lot.  For substantiating the health condition of the complainants, they produced their treatment records and marked it as Exts.P15 and 17.  The learned counsel further submitted that due to the reckless and irresponsible act of the opposite parties 1 to 4, the complainants lost their opportunity for a promotion as Principals, a Class I officer, thus caused much mental, physical and financial damages to them and the opposite parties are solely liable to compensate them.

 

On the other hand, the learned counsel for 1st opposite party and opposite parties 2 to 4 vehemently argued that at the time of booking and

      (cont....7)

 

-  7  -

issuance of   the tickets, it was informed that the flight was International and the complainants should be reported at the concerned terminal before two hours of the proposed time of departure.  The passengers who were checked in until 7.16 pm were allowed to board till 7.16 pm, the complainants were not reported in the concerned counter.  The last person as per Ext.R5 was checked in at 7.16 pm.  Contrary averments are denied by the 2nd opposite party.  The counsel further argued that the complainants reported at the counter well beyond the time permitted and thereafter, they were not issued the boarding pass.  No one of the staff in the  airport humiliated or detained them in the airport.  The counsel added that the averment regarding the health issues are beyond their knowledge and incorporated only to gain the sympathy of the Forum.

 

We had perused the entire materials on record.  It is an admitted fact that the complainants booked two air tickets from 1st opposite party in 24.2.2015 for a journey on 10.4.2015, to attend a departmental test at Delhi on 11.4.2015.  In their ticket, there was no mention of the terminal where the air craft was departed.  The journey was a domestic one, the complainants reached the domestic terminal of the airport, from there, they came to know that the flight having No.A1-47 was scheduled to depart from the International terminal, which is far away from the Domestic Terminal.  As per the averments and deposition of the PW1, they reached the International terminal at 7.10 pm on 10.4.2015, but the officials denied to issue the boarding pass on the reason that the Delhi counter closed.  At the same time, as per the reply version of 2nd and 4th opposite parties, it is specifically stated that, the counter of concerned flight was open till 7.16 pm and the last boarded person was one Justice Ramanujan.  For establishing their plea, opposite party produced the details of last accepted passenger and marked it as Ext.R5.  For proving the presence of the complainants in the International terminal at 7.16 pm, the complainants filed a petition to produce the CCTV footings of the concerned gate and opposite parties 2 to 4 objected to produce it on the reason that, that is under the control of the security wing.  While cross examining the DW1, the commercial officer of 2nd opposite party, he deposed that, they have only to request the authority who is a third party.  But there is no evidence

produced by the 1st opposite party to convince the Forum that they 

   (cont....8)

-  8  -

requested the concerned departmental to produce the CCTV footings as applied by the complainants.  Being the operators of various national and international flights and having vast connections and accessibility in each and every wing of airport controlling authority, opposite parties 2 to 4 can easily collect the CCTV footings and can produce before the Forum to substantiate their version.  Except the oral evidence, complainants have no way to produce any plausible evidence to substantiate their version.  The better and acceptable evidence to prove the presence of the complainants in the airport terminal is only the CCTV footings.  Since the complainant applied for the production of such an evidence, opposite parties 2 to 4 is bound to produce it to clarify their version.  As per the evidence on record, it is seen that opposite parties 2 to 4 has not took any effort to produce the CCTV footings as discussed above. The opposite parties fear that if the CCTV footings are brought before the Forum, it will definitely reveal the true timings which will directly affect the version of the opposite parties that the complainants are not in the counter at the relevant time.  Opposite parties are duty bound to produce the best evidence which was most relevant in this case, which they have failed, stating silly reasons. Hence in the absence of a concrete evidence in this matter, the Forum is not in a position to accept the version of the 1st opposite party regarding the time of presence of the complainants at the above said terminal.  

 

Though opposite parties have produced Ext.R5, the list of last accepted passengers, nothing is mentioned in that record to show that the counter was open upto 7.16 pm as contended by the opposite parties.  

 

Ext.P16 is the reply given by the General Manager of opposite parties 2 to 4 on 20.9.2016 as per Right to Information Act, which shows that the flight was delayed by 30 minutes as scheduled, which is against 20 minutes as stated by opposite parties in their written version.  The difference in Ext.P16 and contention in the written version are to be viewed seriously as both documents arose from opposite parties, which shows that opposite parties differ from their case and not consistent.  Denying the complainants, who are waiting to Board and at the same time delaying the flight for more than half an hour for any reason what so ever seems to add gross injustice to the complainants.  Being customer friendly,

complainant could have given an opportunity to Board in as it is brought

(cont....9)

 -  9  -

out that there was enough time that the scheduled departure time of 8.00pm.

 

More over, Ext.R5 shows that 12 persons did not travel in the flight without cancelling their tickets.  A prudent man cannot infer that 12 persons failed to be present in the counter in time without cancelling the tickets letting to loose their whole money.  This also points to a circumstances of early closure of counter where read with the pleadings in the complaint that complainants and 6 others standing in the queue were denied boarding pass.

 

On perusing Ext.P1 e-ticket issued by the 1st opposite party, it is seen that no details of the terminal, where the flight departed is stated therein.  It is a gross negligence from the part of the 1st opposite party.  They should have mentioned the terminal from which the concerned flight is departing, to avoid confusion of the passengers.  Here, in the instant case, all the problems are arose due to the confusion regarding the terminal.  Being  domestic flight passengers, normally the complainants approached the domestic terminal.  In this case, it is an admitted fact that the complainants reached the domestic terminal within the scheduled time.  But unfortunately, they get the information from there that the flight departs from the International terminal, which is more than half kilometre away from the domestic terminal.  This unfortunate situation has occurred only due to the non-specification of terminal in the flight ticket which was issued by the 1st opposite party.  Opposite parties 2 to 4 are fuuly irresponsible to make sure that the information in the tickets issued to the passengers by the 1st  opposite party is specific.  The loss of time due to the change in the terminal is due to the sheer negligence of the opposite parties.

 

The driver of the vehicle of the complainants who took them to airport was examined as PW2.  He deposed in tune with the complainant and nothing was brought out in the cross examination to disbelieve him.  Being an independent witness his words can be accepted in this juncture.

 

Considering the evidence regarding the test of principalship and its non-appearance due to the non-issuance of boarding pass, the Forum is of 

  (cont....10)

-  10  -

a considered view that the complainants lost their chance to attend the departmental test for a promotion to a Class I Officer neither the fact that whether they win or lose, the opposite parties are liable to compensate them to some extent.  The amount of damages and compensation prayed by the complainants is exorbitant and has no corresponding evidence is produced to convince it, except the pay-slip.  It can be created by anyone and the Forum found that it has no legal footing.  It is to be marked through the person who issued it.

 

From the above said discussion, the Forum is of a considered view that, opposite parties 1, 2 and 4 are jointly liable for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which is happened on their part and caused much damages to the complainants  1 and 2.  It is also considered that for this purpose, complainants approached so many Forum related to the airport authority and opposite parties 2 to 4 and were denied justice and as a last resort, they approached here to redress their grievances.

 

Under the above mentioned circumstances, the Forum finds gross deficiency in service, on the part of opposite parties 1, 2 and 4 in this matter and the complainants proved it with clear and cogent evidence.  Hence the complaint allowed in part.  1st opposite party is directed to refund the price of tickets, if it is not refunded till date, along with Rs.25000/- each as compensation to the complainants 1 and 2.  Opposite parties 2 and 4 are directed to pay Rs.1 lakh each as damages to the complainants and Rs.5000/- each as litigation cost to the complainants.  All the above direction shall be complied by the opposite parties 1, 2 and 4 within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which all the amount stated above except the cost shall bear 12% interest per annum from the date of default, till its realisation.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of April, 2019

 

    Sd/-

                SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

      Sd/-

      SMT. ASAMOL. P., MEMBER                 (cont....11)

- 11  -

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1              -  Shyla P.

PW2              -  Anilkumar. 

On the side of the Opposite Party :

DW1              -  Sundaresh G. Naik.

DW2              -  Mahesh T.K.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1      -  copy of air ticket dated 24.2.2015.  

Ext.P2      -  copy of refund application.  

Ext.P3      -  print out of the complaint registration details. 

 Ext.P4     -  complaint against Air India authorities.  

Ext.P5      -  e-mail print out dated 23.4.2015.  

Ext.P6      -  reply to the e-mail dated 30.5.2015.  

Ext.P7      -  print out of e-mail submission dated 21.6.2015.  

Ext.P8  - copy of complaint submitted before the Air India authorities dated 4.6.2015.  

Ext.P9      - remainder of the letter sent on 13.4.2015.  

Ext.P10    -  application form for the post of Principal of 2nd complainant.  

Ext.P11    -  admission card of 2nd complainant.  

Ext.P12    -  admission card of 1st complainant.  

Ext.P13    -  salary slip of 2nd complainant.  

Ext.P14    -  print out of passenger current status enquiry.  

Ext.P15    -  discharge card of 2nd complainant.  

Ext.P16    -  copy of information sought under RTI and its reply.  

Ext.P17    -  copy of discharge summary of 1st complainant.  

Ext.P18    -  pay slip of 2nd complainant.  

Ext.P19    -  pay-slip of one Maniyappan, Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Painavu.  

Ext.P20    -   pay-slip of one Ramesh Chandra Meena, Principal, 

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Painavu.  

Ext.P21    -  report of Hindustan Times.  

Ext.P22    -  salary certificate of 2nd complainant.  

Ext.P23    -  certificate dated 9.3.2017.     Forwarded by Order,

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1      -   authorisation letter.  

Ext.R2      -   itinerary receipt.         SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT

Ext.R3      -   details of last accepted passenger.  

Ext.R4      -   document of ticket amount refund.  

Ext.R5      -   details of last accepted passenger.