BEFORE THE  A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD

F.A.NO.1091 OF 2013 AGAINST  C.C.NO.948 OF 2011 DISTRICT FORUM-II HYDERABAD

Between:

D.Sambasiva Rao S/o late DV Suryanarayana
Aged about 64 years, Occ: Retd. Govt. Engineer
R/o D.No.5-4-88/2, Bhavani Colony, 
Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-080
                                                                Appellant/complainant

        A N D

The Manager
Emirates Office,
The International Airline of United Arab Emirates
Reliance Classic, Premises 1 & 2, Road No.1
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad

                                                                Respondent/opposite party

Counsel for the Appellant                      M/s   V.Gourisankara Rao

Counsel for the Respondent                   M/s  C.V.Narasimham

QUORUM:  

          SRI  THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER

AND

 SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE  MEMBER

           MONDAY THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY

                                TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN

Oral Order (As per Sri Thota Ashok Kumar, Hon’ble Member)

***

1.             The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.  For convenience sake the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to hereunder

2.             The brief facts of the complaint are that   on 4.6.2011 the complainant booked his flight tickets to New York via Dubai on 28.06.2011 through local travel agents M/s Travelex Services Hyderabad Pvt Ltd., by paying flight charges of 63,000/- towards to and fro charges.  The complainant also got confirmed the vegetarian meals.  The complainant obtained boarding pass and got seat No.225 in Economy class in Emirates Flight No.EK 529 on 13.06.2011.  In the flight the complainant requested the two lady crew to serve vegetarian meals as per ticket but they served non-vegetarian meals.  The complainant asked the crew about serving of non-veg meals then the crew reported that no vegetarian meals were available in the flight.  The complainant is a very orthodox Brahmin and he never touched non-veg meals upto 62 years.  Due to the said incident the sentiments and belief of the complainant were deeply hurt.  On 30.07.2011 the complainant submitted a representation to the opposite party requesting to take suitable action against the erring crew members and demanded to pay compensation of 5,00,000/- to which  the opposite party gave reply dated 02.08.2011 stating that the representation of the complainant was forwarded to their Customer Affairs and Service Audit at their Head Office at Dubai.  On 23.-8.2011 the Head Office of the opposite party at Dubai gave a detailed reply to the complainant apologizing for the inconvenience caused to the complainant for service of the vegetarian meals.  Hence the complainant filed the complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.5 lakh along with costs of 10,000/-.

3.             The opposite party resisted the case contending that the complainant had requested for Asian Vegetarian meals at the time of booking ticket and he was served Asian Vegetarian meal on board the flight.  Ongoing through the menu of the meals uplifted on the said flight, the vegetarian meals consisted of Bhindi andSambhar while non-vegetarian meals served was chicken.  Thus non-vegetarian meals could not have been mistaken for a vegetarian meal. There is a distinct difference in chicken and Bhindi.  The complainant did not give any complaint even on arrival at Dubai or New York.  The opposite party denied serving of non-vegetarian means to the complainant.  Hence, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

4.             The complainant no.1 filed his affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to A7.  On behalf of the opposite parties, the Vice President, India & Nepal with Emirates filed his affidavit and marked Ex.B1 which is a catering menu.

5.             Having heard both side counsel and considering the material on record, the District Forum vide its order dated 25.03.2013 dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainant failed to prove that the crew supplied non-vegetarian means instead of vegetarian meals. 

6.             Aggrieved by the said order the complainant  preferred the appeal contending that as per Ex.A1 the complainant already booked for Asian Vegetarian meals while traveling from Hyderabad to New York via Dubai and that the complainant has no intention to make any false claim as he is a highly educated and retired Government Engineer.  The opposite party after reviewing all correspondence the Customer Affairs in-charge appreciated the inconvenience caused to the complainant but regretted to give compensation and thus prayed to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order consequently allow the complaint. 

7.             Heard both side counsel with reference to their respective contentions in detail. 

8.             Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated by misappreciation of fact or law?

9.             It is not in dispute that the complainant booked flight to New York to Hyderabad via Dubai on board meal Asian Vegetarian and Ex.A1 establishes the same.  It is also not in dispute that the complainant obtained boarding pass and got seat No.225 in Emirates flight No.EK529.  The main dispute between the complainant and opposite party is with regard to serving of non-vegetarian meals.  The complainant contended that the crew of the opposite party served non-veg meals.  It is true that as per Ex.B1 menu on 13.6.2011 vegetarian and non-vegetarian meals was supplied to the passengers but it does not mean that vegetarian food was supplied to the complainant.  The  Vice President, India & Nepal with Emirates filed his affidavit stating that only vegetarian food was supplied to the complainant.  He has no personal knowledge about the events that had taken place during the relevant time in the flight and none of the crew who were on duty on the said date filed their affidavit evidence deposing the said aspect and therefore adverse inference is drawn against the opposite party and in favour of the complainant in the said context. As seen from Exs.A4 and A5 it is clear that opposite party regretted for the inconvenience if any caused to the complainant and even though the word ‘if’ is used the circumstances of the said document support the version of the complainant otherwise the opposite party would not have expressed its regrets to the complainant.   The complainant is competent to depose the facts touching his grievance whereas the said Vice President has no personal knowledge and thus we are satisfied to hold that the evidence of the complainant has not been rebutted by the opposite party.  Absolutely the complainant who is a senior citizen and orthodox brahimin has no reasons to foist a false case against the opposite party.  Merely because he did not give complaint in writing to the crew or at his alighting point i.e., Dubai or New Yord it cannot be allowed to be contended that no such incident had taken place.  Certainly the feelings of the complainant were hurt on account of serving non-vegetarian meals in place of vegetarian meals subjecting him to mental agony etc., and therefore the complainant is entitled for some compensation.  

10.            In view of above discussion the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is liable to be allowed in part by granting a token compensation of 5,000/- to the complainant. 

11.            In the result the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum.  Consequently the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay compensation of 5,000/- and costs of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant.  Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 

                                                                        MEMBER

                                                                        MEMBER

                                                                     Dt.07.07.2014

కె.ఎం.కె*